HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 01 15 AIS PC RS Springfield Development Code Amendmernts
ITEM TITLE: SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - File No. 2009-00015
ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to review and provide feed-back to staff regarding the draft
Springfield Development Code (SDC) amendments.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The draft SDC amendments are Phase 1 Land Use Efficiency Measures that implement the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies to establish:
The Small Lot Residential (SLR) zoning district that facilitates development of attached and
detached single-family dwelling types on small lots/parcels as an outright permitted use.
These housing types provide additional affordable housing options and allow more
residential dwelling units than would be achieved by building only detached homes. The SLR
zoning district is intended to be a tool for future planning purposes and could be applied to
infill opportunity sites identified in neighborhood planning processes or through refinement
plan updates after additional analysis and as directed by the City Council through the
Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan approval processes.
Density ranges in all residential districts that utilize the term “net” acre instead of
“developable” acre to be consistent with the Metro Plan and the Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan (SRP) Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
A minimum density per net acre of 6 dwelling units in the Low Density Residential District
and 8 dwelling units in the SLR District. Minimum densities encourage efficient land use by
eliminating under building in residential districts while making provision of services more
cost effective.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Report
Attachment 2: SDC Amendments Phase 1 Land Use Efficiency Measures - Implementation of the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
Attachment 3: Small Lot Residential Development Example
Attachment 4: Cottage Cluster Development Example
DISCUSSION:
In June 2011, the Springfield City Council adopted the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
and SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element — a set of land use policies to guide
residential development in the Metro area east of Interstate 5 for the planning period 2010-
2030. The adopted SRP policies and implementation actions identify measures necessary to
improve the efficiency of land use within the UGB and to increase the likelihood that residential
development will occur at the density and mix of housing types required to meet Springfield’s 20
year housing needs as described in the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis
(RLHNA). Through the City’s multi-year Residential Land Study planning process (2007-2011), a
range of potential Land Use Efficiency Measures were identified, presented to the community,
evaluated and prioritized by the Residential Lands Stakeholder Committee, Planning Commission
and City Council. As directed by the City Council, staff prioritized and drafted a preliminary
“Phase One” package of SDC amendments. The preliminary draft was reviewed by the
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions in 2010 as part of a larger multi-element
Springfield 2030 Plan public hearing process. Since the 2010 hearing, staff conducted further
analysis to explain and refine the proposal. On December 4,2012 the Planning Commission held
a Work Session with staff to review and provide input on the revised draft. No changes were
made to the proposed SDC amendments. The City Council Public Hearing is scheduled on
February 19, 2013. The SDC amendments will also require review and approval from the Lane
County Board of Commissioners. This public hearing will be scheduled after City Council
adoption of the SDC amending Ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/15/2013
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Gary M. Karp/DPW
Staff Phone No: 726-3777
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Estimated Time: 20 Minutes
1
STAFF REPORT, FINDINGS AND ORDER
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments
Phase 1 Land Use Efficiency Measures
Nature of the Proposal: The Planning Commission is asked to forward a recommendation
of approval to the City Council regarding the adoption of proposed Phase 1 Land Use
Efficiency Measures amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Residential Land Use and Housing Element policies
and implementation measures. These measures address Springfield’s housing needs and
20-year residential land supply by establishing:
1. The Small Lot Residential (SLR) zoning district that facilitates development of attached
and detached single-family dwelling types on small lots/parcels as an outright
permitted use. These housing types provide additional affordable housing options and
allow more residential dwelling units than would be achieved by building only detached
homes. The SLR zoning district is intended to be a tool for future planning purposes and
could be applied to infill opportunity sites identified in neighborhood planning
processes or through refinement plan updates after additional analysis and as directed
by the City Council through the Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan approval
processes;
2. Density ranges in all residential zoning districts that will utilize the term “net” acre
instead of “developable” or “gross” acre to be consistent with the Metro Plan and SRP
Residential Land Use and Housing Element;
3. A minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the Low Density Residential
(LDR) zoning district and 8 dwelling units per net acre in the SLR zoning district.
Minimum densities ensure efficient use of the residential land supply, eliminate under
building in residential zoning districts and make the provision of services more cost
effective. The maximum density in these two residential zoning districts is 14 dwelling
units per net acre. There is no change in the maximum density;
4. Base zone standards for the SLR zoning district;
5. Type I design standards for: duplexes in the SLR, Medium Density Residential (MDR) and
High Density Residential (HDR) zoning districts; and attached single-family dwellings in
all residential zoning districts;
6. Siting standards for duplexes in all residential zoning districts;
7. Additions to and/or revisions of definitions pertaining to “dwellings” in support of the
SLR zoning district; and, in addition;
8. “Housekeeping” amendments pertaining to: RV siting standards and Future
Development Plans.
Springfield File
Number:
LRP 2009-00015*
* This proposal was
initiated as part of a
larger public process
begun in 2009.
2
BACKGROUND/MANDATE/RATIONALE FOR ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED SDC AMENDMENTS
2007 HB 3337 was enacted by the Oregon Legislature and codified as ORS 197.304. HB 3337 required
that Springfield demonstrate, as specified in ORS 197.296, that its comprehensive plan (Metro
Plan) provide sufficient buildable lands within its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years.
The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA) project began.
2009 Land Use Efficiency Measures required as part of the RLHNA project were reviewed and
prioritized by the Residential Lands Stakeholder Committee and the Planning Commission. Two
public open houses were conducted in April-May 2009 to gather input on the proposed
measures. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council consider implementing
these measures. The City Council directed staff to develop the planning tools necessary to
implement the Phase 1 Land Use Efficiency Measures.
The City Council adopted the RLHNA by Resolution 09-54 on December 7th.
2010 The public review process begins for final adoption of the RLHNA and the SRP Residential Land
Use and Housing Element (responding to findings in the RLHNA by establishing policies and
implementation actions). An earlier draft of the Proposed Phase 1 Land Use Efficiency Measures
code amendments was included in the larger Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) policy
package reviewed by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions in work sessions and
a public
2011 The RLHNA, the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element and the Springfield UGB were
adopted by Springfield Ordinance 6268 on June 20, 2011. The Lane County Board of
Commissioners adopted the above mentioned documents by Ordinance PA 1274 on July 6, 2011.
However, the, Phase 1 Land Use Efficiency Measures code amendments were not included as
part of the Ordinance adopted by either jurisdiction at that time.
2012 Staff was directed to finalize the public review process to adopt the proposed Phase 1 Land Use
Efficiency Measures.
PROPOSED SDC AMENDMENTS PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
Planning Commission Work Session 12/04/12
Planning Commission Public Hearing 01/15/13
City Council Public Hearing 02/19/13
Land County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing To be determined
3
SIMILAR REGULATIONS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON
The proposed SDC amendments:
include establishment of the SLR zoning district, duplex regulations, cottage housing, attached
single-family and duplex design standards, zero lot line development, minimum lot/parcel sizes, and
minimum required densities in the LDR and SLR zoning districts; and
are similar to residential development standards already in effect in Washington and Oregon
communities (ref. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington).
Washington
A number of communities have established some small lot zones with reduced minimum lot/parcel size
requirements, which tend to reduce the cost of land associated with each residence and allow
developments with more units per acre. Other local codes provide for attached housing, corner lot
duplexes, cottage or clustered housing, or other more flexible arrangements that may prevent potential
dwelling units from being lost due to constraints such as a creek, or may allow a small increase in
dwelling units without giving up a sense of open space.
Everett Zoning Code - Small Lot Single Family Dwelling - Small lots, duplexes
Kirkland Municipal Code - Lots - Small lot single-family
Mountlake Terrace - Small lot housing, cottage housing, accessory dwelling units, and single family
design standards, adopted 05/19/2008
Moxee Municipal Code - Cluster Development Standards - Single family attached, zero lot line and
single family cottage housing options
Redmond Zoning Code - Minimum Required Density, and - Minimum Average Lot Size
Seattle Municipal Code - Residential Small Lot District
Yelm Municipal Code - Townhouse Development
Oregon
Portland Zoning Code - Alternative Design Density Overlay Zone, and - Alternative Development
Options - Portions include duplex on corner lots, zero lot line development, and other options to
increase density or flexibility
Bend Zoning Code –Design Standards - Duplexes and Triplexes – and Attached Single-family
Townhomes
REFINEMENT PLAN, PLAN DISTRICT, AND SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS –
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
SDC Section 5.6-115 applies to proposed SDC amendments and requires conformance with the following
approval criteria:
A. The Metro Plan;
4
B. Applicable State statutes; and
C. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
SDC Section 5.6-115 Criterion “A. The Metro Plan;”
USE OF THE METRO PLAN
“The Metro Plan is a policy document intended to provide the three jurisdictions and other agencies
and districts with a coordinated guide for change over a long period of time. The major components of
this policy document are: the written text, which includes goals, objectives, findings, and policies; the
Metro Plan Diagram; and other supporting materials. These terms are defined below:
A goal is a broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes of the people of the community
for the future of the community. A goal may never be completely attainable, but is used as a point
to strive for.
An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving to meet a
goal. An objective may also be considered as an intermediate point that will help fulfill the overall
goal.
A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Plan to provide a consistent course of action moving
the community towards attainment of its goals. (Ref. P. I -4)
Findings
In recognition of the fact that compliance with adopted Metro Plan policies will lead towards the
achievement of the Metro Plan Goals and Objectives, the analysis provided in this part of the staff
report addresses applicable Metro Plan policies exclusively.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
“The Metro Plan Diagram is a generalized map and graphic expression of the goals, objectives, and
recommendations found elsewhere in the Metro Plan.” (Ref. P. I -5)
“Land use designations shown in the Metro Plan Diagram are depicted at a metropolitan scale. Used
with the text and local plans and policies1, they provide direction for decisions pertaining to
appropriate reuse (redevelopment), urbanization of vacant parcels, and additional use of
underdeveloped parcels.” (Ref. P. II-G-2)
Findings
The proposed SDC amendments do not affect the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan land use
designation involved in the proposed SDC amendments is Low Density Residential (LDR). The proposed
SDC amendments do not amend and therefore, will not affect the Metro Plan LDR land use designation.
What the proposed SDC amendments will achieve is the establishment of a second zoning district within
the Metro Plan LDR land use designation. Most other jurisdictions in Oregon have more than one
1 The local plan and policies applicable to this application is the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SPR).
5
“single-family” zoning district. For example, Portland has 5, Lake Oswego has 3, Bend has 3 and Ashland
has 4. Upon adoption of the proposed SDC amendments, the proposed SLR and the current LDR zoning
district will be the two zoning districts permitted within the Metro Plan LDR land use designation.
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with and do not affect the current Metro Plan
diagram and LDR land use designation.
CONSISTENCY WITH METRO PLAN POLICIES
C. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES
“1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential means to
achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall be concentrated inside
the urban growth boundary.” (Ref. P. II-C-3)
Findings
The SLR zoning district, as described in proposed SDC Section 3.2-205B., will be a tool for future planning
purposes that could be applied to infill opportunity sites identified in neighborhood planning processes,
or through refinement plan updates after additional analysis and as directed by the City Council through
the Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan approval processes; SRP Residential Land Use and Housing
Element (Implementation Actions 7.3 and 7.4) identify two areas where application of the zone shall be
considered after additional analysis to determine applicability. These are: Jasper-Natron lands
constrained by wetland resources, (as part of the Jasper-Natron refinement planning process) and the
existing residential neighborhoods south of Franklin Boulevard (as part of Glenwood Phase 2, which will
be an update of the current Glenwood Refinement Plan). Both possible SLR implementation areas are
outside of Springfield’s city limits, but within Springfield’s UGB. However, in order for SLR zoning district
development to occur, land would need to be annexed to Springfield. Implementation of the proposed
SLR zoning district will need to address how development may occur with a full range of key urban
facilities and services prior to annexation. The growth management policies cited above will be
addressed during the Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan approval and the Springfield Zoning Map
amendment processes. There are no plans to implement the proposed SLR zoning district at this time.
Nevertheless, the provision of public facilities and services to Jasper-Natron and Glenwood are
addressed in other applicable Metro Plan policies in this staff report because these two areas are
identified in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
“ 24. To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text and on
the Metro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential construction, but
not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling units per gross acre over
the planning period.” (Ref. P. II-C-7)
Findings
The RLHNA, which amended the Metro Plan in 2011, states: “The forecast indicates that Springfield will
need about 754 net residential acres, or about 918 gross residential acres to accommodate new
housing between 2010 and 2030. The forecast results in an average residential density of 7.9 dwelling
units per net residential acre and 6.5 dwelling units per gross residential acre. This represents a 20%
increase in density over the historical average of 6.6 dwelling units per net acre.” (RLHNA P. 62)
6
The proposed SDC amendments will help achieve compact urban growth by establishing a minimum
density of 8 dwelling units per net acre in the SLR zoning district and a minimum density of 6 dwelling
units per net acre in the LDR zoning district.
Note: The Metro Plan defines gross and net density as follows: “Density (gross): The number of
dwelling units per each acre of land, including areas devoted to dedicated streets, neighborhood
parks, sidewalks, and other public facilities.” “Density (net): The number of dwelling units per each
acre of land in residential use, excluding from the acreage dedicated streets, neighborhood parks,
sidewalks, and public facilities.” (Ref. V-2)
The SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element, Implementation Action 7.1 regarding the
establishment of the proposed SLR zoning district utilizes a density range of 8-14 dwelling units per net
acre. All of the existing residential zoning districts in proposed SDC Section 3.2-205 will be converted
from “developable” acre to “net” acre to be consistent with the Metro Plan and the SRP Residential
Land Use and Housing Element.
A. Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element Policies
“A.2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with the Metro Plan
and applicable plans and policies;….” (Ref. P. III-A-5)
Findings
The proposed SDC amendments implement the Metro Plan LDR land use designation. The proposed SLR
zoning district will be Springfield’s second zoning district permitted within the current Metro Plan LDR
land use designation. The proposed SDC amendments do not require any change to the current Metro
Plan LDR designation. The intent of the proposed SLR zoning district is to:
Increase the low-end density in the LDR zoning district to 6 dwelling units per net acre and to 8
dwelling units per net acre in the SLR zoning district. The high-end density for both the LDR and SLR
zoning districts is 14 dwelling units per net acre (no change is proposed here); and
Foster housing choice and affordability.
Achieve compact urban development and efficient use of the residential land supply.
Zoning of residentially designated land within Springfield’s UGB must be consistent with applicable local
plans. Therefore, upon approval of the proposed SDC amendments, the existing LDR zoning district and
the proposed SLR zoning district will be consistent with the Metro Plan LDR land use designation and
Metro Plan Policy A.2. The local refinement plan containing the policies applicable to this decision is the
SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element. Findings of consistency with the SRP begin on Page 11
of this staff report.
“A.4 Use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services, rezoning, redevelopment,
and infill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand.” (Ref. P. III-A-5)
Findings
The RLHNA and the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element adopted by Ordinance 6268 in 2011
provides for Springfield’s 20-year projected housing demand. The proposed SDC amendments support
future rezoning, redevelopment and infill to meet 20-year housing needs and therefore are consistent
7
with Metro Plan Policy A.4. The SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element Implementation Actions
7.3 and 7.4 indentify Jasper-Natron and Glenwood as potential locations for implementation of the
proposed SLR zoning district, as may be directed by the City Council. Both areas are outside of
Springfield’s city limits, but within its UGB. Both areas would require additional analysis to determine
applicability of the proposed SLR zoning district through the Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan
approval, the Springfield Zoning Map amendment processes, as well as, annexation to Springfield prior
to any proposed development.
“A.9 Establish density ranges in local zoning and development regulations that are consistent with
the broad density categories of this plan:
Low Density: Through 10 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate up to 14.28 units per
net acre depending on each jurisdiction’s implementation measures and development codes)
Medium density: Over 10 through 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate to over
14.28 units per net acre through 28.56 units per net acre depending on each jurisdiction’s
implementation measures and development codes)
High density: Over 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate to over 28.56 units per net
acre depending on each jurisdiction’s implementation measures and development codes)”
Findings
Proposed SDC Section 3.2-205 contains the following zoning districts with the following density ranges:
LDR 6-14 dwelling units per net acre; SLR 8-14 dwelling units per net acre; MDR 14-28 dwelling units per
net acre; and HDR over 28 dwelling units per net acre. These densities are consistent with the Metro
Plan density ranges cited above as well as the density ranges cited in the SRP Residential Land Use and
Housing Element Implementation Action 1.1. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent
with Metro Plan Policy A.9.
“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.” (Ref. P. III-A-7)
Findings
Requiring a higher initial density of 8 dwelling units per net acre in the proposed SLR zoning district and
6 dwelling units per net acre in the existing LDR zoning district as well as building toward the maximum
density of 14 dwelling units per net acre of both residential districts conserves rural resource lands
outside the UGB because no UGB expansion will be necessary. Therefore, the proposed SDC
amendments are consistent with Metro Plan Policy A.10.
“Á. 14 Review local zoning and development regulations periodically to remove barriers to higher
density housing and to make provisions for a full range of housing options.”
“A. 15 Develop a wider range of zoning options such as new zoning districts, to fully utilize existing
Metro Plan density ranges.”
8
“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 maintain or increasing
housing density in those districts. Under no circumstances, shall housing densities be allowed
below existing Metro Plan density ranges.”
“A. 17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, 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 development regulations. “
“A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods
through local zoning and development regulations.” (Ref. P. III-A-9)
“A.24 Consider adopting or modifying local zoning and development regulations to provide a
discretionary design review or clear and objective standards, in order to address issues of
compatibility, aesthetics, open space, and other community concerns.
Findings
The SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element addressed these Metro Plan policies and provides
direction for local implementation in Springfield.
The proposed SLR zoning district “Establishes sites for residential development where a mix of attached
and detached single-family dwellings are permitted on small lots/parcels with a density range of 8-14
dwellings per net acre….” The identified areas where the proposed SLR zoning district may be utilized
are Jasper-Natron, a newly developing area, and Glenwood, on the south side of Franklin Boulevard
within an existing LDR designated and zoned neighborhood. Design standards as proposed in SDC
Section 4.7-142 for duplexes and attached single-family dwellings in the SLR District and in other
applicable residential zoning districts are clear and objective – the applicant chooses 6 design elements
from a larger list of design elements. Applications will be processed as a Type I staff review without the
need for public notice. Proposed SDC Section 4.7-233 adds a requirement for a mix of housing types in
the SLR zoning district, based upon the size of the development area. For example, development areas
less than 5 acres will require at least 2 different housing types; development areas 5 acres and above
will require at least 3 different housing types. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent
with Metro Plan Policies A.14-18, 22, and 24.
“A.33 Consider local zoning and development regulations impact on the cost of housing.” (Ref. P. III-
A-12)
Findings
In order to meet the proposed density range of 8-14 dwelling units per net acre, the primary housing
types that will be utilized in the proposed SLR zoning district will be attached single-family dwellings
(town homes, row houses, etc,) and duplexes. Attached single-family dwellings and duplexes “…provide
more than one unit under the roof. This style of housing can often be rented or sold for less than low-
density, detached single-family housing, primarily because the cost of land - one of the largest cost
components of any new development - is distributed among a greater number of households. Building at
9
a relatively higher initial density also facilitates more efficient delivery of public services and
infrastructure, such as trash removal and sewer systems, which can then be supplied at a lower per-unit
cost. Neighborhoods with higher initial density also can more effectively address traffic congestion and
transportation needs. Unlike detached single-family development, higher initial density housing is able to
support public transportation, helping to reduce individual transportation costs and the community's
traffic congestion. Higher initial density development can also cut down travel time for working
individuals, reducing the time they spend in the car and providing more convenient access to services and
amenities that can particularly be a benefit to certain populations, such as older adults.” (Ref. Housing
Policy.org.)
In addition, the proposed review process and application of design standards for duplex and attached
single-family dwellings in the SLR zoning district is a Type I staff review, without public notice, rather
than the Type III Discretionary Use Planning Commission review for attached single-family dwellings that
is currently required in the LDR zoning district*. The Type I staff review process discussed above will also
save the applicant development review costs (Type I vs. Type II Site Plan application, a staff review
requiring public notice).
*Note: The long-term policy regarding the requirement for attached single-family dwellings in the LDR
zoning district requiring Type III Discretionary Use approval from the Planning Commission has
been to protect the integrity of the single-family detached development pattern currently
occurring in this zoning district. The intent of the proposed SLR zoning district is to allow a mix of
housing types in areas within the LDR designation either in new development areas (Jasper-
Natron) or when converting existing LDR designated and zoned areas (Glenwood, south of
Franklin Boulevard). This is why proposed SDC Section 3.2-205B. states that the City Council will
determine where the proposed SLR zoning district will be applied. However, if the Planning
Commission and/or City Council choose to reconsider the Type III Discretionary Use process
currently required for attached single-family dwellings in the LDR zoning district, they should be
aware that this circumstance is outside the scope of these proposed SDC amendments (Phase 1
Land Use Efficiency Measures). Consequently, this topic could be considered during a future
phase of the Land Use Efficiency process.
The impact on the cost of housing has been considered. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are
consistent with Metro Plan Policy A.33.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ELEMENT
“E.1 In order to promote the greatest possible degree of diversity, a broad variety of commercial,
residential, and recreational land uses shall be encouraged when consistent with other
planning policies”. (Page III-E-3)
Findings
The proposed SLR zoning district applies SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element implementation
actions. Specifically, the proposed SLR zoning district “Establishes sites for residential development
where a mix of attached and detached single-family dwellings are permitted….” thus providing a greater
degree of housing diversity and, as stated above, with reduced costs, housing will be available to a wider
range of income groups. The proposed SDC amendments do not specifically address commercial or
recreational land uses. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with Metro Plan Policy
10
“E.3 The planting of street trees shall be strongly encouraged, especially for all new developments
and redeveloping areas (where feasible) and new streets and reconstruction of major arterials
within the UGB”. (Page III-E-3)
Findings
The proposed SLR zoning district will be implemented by primarily using the land division process
(subdivision), specified in SDC Section 5.12-100), where the provision of utilities and the dedication of
right-of-way for streets and alleys will be considered. SDC Section 4.2-140 currently requires the
planting of street trees. Depending upon the street classification, street trees are typically planted prior
to occupancy. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with Metro Plan Policy E.3.
“E.4 Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and
enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of
identity.” (Page III-E-3)
Findings
SDC Section 4.3-125 currently requires electrical utilities to be located underground and SDC Section
4.3-110 requires compliance with stormwater management procedures that may require an on-site
stormwater detention basin; these topics will be addressed during the land division process described
above. The design and location of public and private utilities will enhance the desirable features of
proposed SLR zoning district development areas. In addition, the mix of housing types in the proposed
SLR zoning district, especially in larger development areas, will create a local neighborhood with its own
identity. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with Metro Plan Policy E.4.
“E.5 Carefully develop sites that provide visual diversity to the urban area and optimize their visual
and personal accessibility to residents”. (Page III-E-3)
Findings
The SLR zoning district “Establishes sites for residential development where a mix of attached and
detached single-family dwellings are permitted….” thus providing visual diversity as specified in
proposed SDC Section 4.7-142 (design standards) and optimizing visual and personal accessibility to
residents. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with Metro Plan Policy A.9.
“E.6 Local jurisdictions shall carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure that they
address environmental design considerations, such as, but not limited to, safety, crime
prevention, aesthetics, and compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent uses
(particularly considering high and medium density development locating adjacent to low
density residential).” (Page III-E-3)
“E.7 The development of urban design elements as part of local and refinement plans shall be
encouraged.”
“E. 8 Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in design that
will achieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems.
11
Findings
Proposed SDC Section 4.7-142 establishes design standards for duplexes in the proposed SLR and
existing MDR and HDR zoning districts and for attached single-family dwellings in all residential districts.
The developer is given the option of choosing 6 design elements from a larger list of design elements.
One of the design elements on the list is a porch. Porches can provide “eyes on the street” thus
addressing safety, crime prevention as well as aesthetics. Compatibility with existing and anticipated
adjacent uses, especially the LDR zoning district, will be regulated by the height limitation specified in
amended proposed SDC Section 3.2-215. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with
Metro Plan Policies E.6-E.8.
F. Transportation Element
“F.13 Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.” (Page III-F-7)
Findings
The proposed SDC amendments support transportation strategies intended to that enhance
neighborhood livability by encouraging compact growth and efficient utilization of land and
infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with Metro Plan Policies F.13
and F.28.
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
“G.1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an orderly and
efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter II-C, relevant
policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.” (Page III-G-4)
Findings
The proposed SDC amendments support compact urban development and the orderly and efficient use
of land and extension of services.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE SRP RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND HOUSING ELEMENT AND APPLICABLE
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
The policies in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element establish Springfield’s long-term
policies and shorter-term implementation actions for meeting identified housing needs for the plan
period 2010-2030. The SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element provisions supplement, refine
and support policies contained in the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element, discussed
under criterion A that are applicable only within Springfield’s UGB. The goals, policies and
implementation actions were developed to respond to the findings in the RLHNA in ways that best
implement Springfield’s preferred residential land use growth management strategies — as identified
and prioritized through the public involvement process. The policies and implementation actions in the
SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element support a 20 percent increase in density over the
historical development pattern by facilitating more dense development patterns. Issues not addressed
in this Element are addressed in the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element discussed in
12
criterion A. The policies in this Element provide direction for Springfield in updating refinement plans,
zoning and development regulations to address the community’s housing needs.
Springfield’s residential and mixed use districts, as depicted in the Metro Plan diagram and Springfield’s
refinement plans and as proposed in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element Policies and
Implementation Strategies, provide a residential land base with sufficient capacity for the market to
develop adequate numbers of needed housing units to meet expected demand through 2030. In 2010,
the conclusions of Springfield’s buildable lands inventory and housing needs analysis showed that there
was a surplus of buildable land in both the LDR and MDR land use designations and a deficit in the HDR
land use designation of 28 gross buildable acres. The SRP included a mandatory commitment to amend
the Glenwood Refinement Plan by 2012 to redesignate at least 28 gross acres of land for high density
residential development. This measure was adopted to ensure that Springfield’s separate UGB will
include enough buildable land to satisfy Springfield’s projected housing needs by type and density
range, as determined in the RLHNA. Note: the HDR deficit discussed above was resolved by the adoption
of Glenwood Phase 1 in September 2012 (Ord. 6279 – LRP 2008-0017; TYP411-0006; TYP411-0005; and
TYP311-00001).
The following the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element Policies and Implementation Actions
are addressed by these proposed SDC amendments:
“Policy H .1: Based on the findings in the RLHNA and to accommodate projected growth between
2010 and 2030, Springfield has designated sufficient buildable residential land (a) for at least 5,920
new dwelling units at an estimated density of at least 7.9 units per net buildable acre; and (b) to
accommodate a new dwelling mix of approximately 52 percent detached single family dwellings
(including manufactured dwellings on individual lots), seven percent attached single-family dwellings,
one percent manufactured dwellings in parks, and 40 percent multifamily dwellings.”
“Implementation Action 1.1: Convert density ranges in the Springfield Development Code from gross
to net densities, consistent with the broad density categories of the Metro Plan. This plan converts
Metro Plan gross densities to net densities as follows: Residential Low Density 6-14 dwelling units per
acre; Residential Special Density 8-14 dwelling units per acre; Residential Medium Density 14-28
dwelling units per acre; Residential High Density 28-42 dwelling units per acre;….”
Findings
The proposed amendments to SDC Section 3.2-205 address Implementation Action 1.1 by converting
gross acres, as described in the Metro Plan, to net acres. Currently, SDC Section 3.2-205 utilizes the term
“developable” acre. While both terms are “developable” acre and “net” acre are defined the same (the
number of dwelling units per each acre of land in residential use, excluding from the acreage dedicated
streets and alleys, neighborhood parks and public facilities), the current term “developable” acre is
changed to “net” acre to be consistent with the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element
terminology and is applicable to all residential zoning districts in Springfield.
The proposed SDC amendments also establish a minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the
LDR zoning district to increase utilization of the land supply and increase dwelling type options to meet
projected housing needs. Currently, there is no minimum density standard in the LDR zoning district;
however, single-family detached housing types averaged a density of 5.4 dwelling units per net acre
from 2000-2008, while manufactured homes achieved a lower density of 4.6 dwelling units per net acre.
13
This includes hillside sites that require larger lot sizes and thus result in lower density. Springfield’s
challenge is to make better utilization of land and increase the number of single-family homes (detached
and attached) in the Metro Plan LDR land use designation to meet demand and demographic trends
addressing housing affordability and choice. The proposed minimum would push a slightly higher
density and a greater diversity of housing choices on flat sites. Much of Springfield’s remaining
buildable residential lands are in the slope-constrained Hillside Development Overlay District where the
minimum density standard does not apply. Springfield’s “needed” overall density for single-family
dwellings in the RLHNA is 5.5 dwelling units per net acre (p. 61). Within the Hillside Development
Overlay District where lot/parcel sizes are regulated by percent of slope: 15-25 percent requires 10,000
square feet; 25-35 percent requires 20,000 square feet; and over 35 percent requires 40,000 square
feet; the density ranges from 1 to 4 dwelling units per net acre. Therefore, the proposed SDC
amendments are consistent with SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element Policy H.1 and
Implementation Action 1.1.
“Policy H .7: Continue to develop and update regulatory options and incentives to encourage and
facilitate development of more attached and clustered single-family housing types in the low density
and medium density districts.
“Implementation Action 7.1: Establish a small lot (3,000 square feet minimum lot size) special low-
moderate density zoning district with a density range of 8-14 du/acre to:
support development of smaller single family detached and attached dwelling housing types;
support a greater diversity of housing mix; and
provide a moderate transition zone between lower and higher density neighborhoods.”
“Implementation Action 7.2: Apply small lot zoning (3,000 square feet minimum lot size) to infill
opportunity sites identified in neighborhood planning processes.”
“Implementation Action 7.3: As part of the Jasper-Natron refinement planning process, conduct
analysis to determine applicability of the Residential Small Lot zoning district to maximize efficient use
of land constrained by wetland resources”.
“Implementation Action 7.4: As part of the Glenwood refinement planning process, conduct analysis
to determine applicability of the Residential Small Lot zoning district in the existing residential
neighborhoods south of Franklin Boulevard.”
Findings
The proposed amendments to SDC Section 3.2-205B. establish the SLR zoning district that “Establishes
sites for residential development where a mix of detached single-family dwellings are permitted on small
lots/parcels[3.000 square feet] with a density range of 8-14 dwelling units per net acre.” The goal is to
apply the proposed SLR zoning district to land designated LDR during a Refinement Plan and/or Master
Plan approval process. The proposed SLR zoning district will provide for more intense development by
allowing smaller lot/parcel sizes and a higher minimum density than the LDR zoning district to provide
increased densities. The minimum density of 8 dwelling units per net acre is the minimum necessary to
support bus transit. The proposed SLR zoning district permits attached single-family dwellings such as
townhouses and rowhouses outright, while currently in the LDR zoning district they are permitted only
after obtaining Discretionary Use approval from the Planning Commission. The SRP identifies two
possible locations for implementing the proposed SLR District, Jasper-Natron and Glenwood (Phase 2)
14
and states that other infill opportunity sites shall be identified through neighborhood planning
processes. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with SRP Residential Land Use and
Housing Element Policy H.7 and Implementation Actions 7.1-7.4.
“Policy H.11: Continue to seek ways to update development standards to introduce a variety of
housing options for all income levels in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas that
match the changing demographics and lifestyles of Springfield residents.”
“Implementation Action 11.2: Protect and enhance existing single family neighborhoods and
affordable housing stock in the incorporated areas of Springfield where urban services currently are in
place.”
Findings
The proposed amendment to SDC Section 3.2-205B. states: ”Small Lot Residential District (SLR). Unless
otherwise directed by the City Council, application of the SLR District shall occur as part of a Refinement
Plan and/or Master Plan approval process.”
The above reference, by limiting the application of the proposed SLR District, ensures that small lot
developments are not permitted throughout existing low density residential districts and that they are
sited thoughtfully to address unique neighborhood opportunities, constraints and contexts.
The proposed amendment to SDC Section 3.2-205B.1. states: “Establishes sites for residential
development where a mix of attached and detached single-family dwellings are permitted on small
lots/parcels….” The proposed amendment to SDC Section 4.7-140 states: “…duplexes are permitted
outright on corner lots/parcels in all residential districts, including the SLR District.”
The two references above refer to proposed SDC amendments that introduce a variety of housing
options for all income levels in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas.
The proposed amendment to SDC Section 4.7-142 adds Type I design standards for: duplexes in the
proposed SLR, and existing MDR and HDR Districts and attached single-family dwellings in all residential
districts.
Currently, a Type II staff process with public notice (Site Plan Review) is not required for single-family
detached and duplexes on corner lots/parcels in the LDR zoning district. House plans are reviewed
through the Building Permit process. Development in the MDR and HDR zoning districts require Site Plan
Review. In lieu of Site Plan Review for duplexes on corner lots/parcels and attached single-family
dwellings in the proposed SLR, and existing MDR and HDR zoning districts, Type I building design
standards and compliance with other applicable SDC development standards, including but not limited
to: stormwater management; wastewater management, and landscaping will be required as part of this
review process. The developer will be required to choose any 6 standards from a list of 13 standards.
The Type I review process will help reduce development costs.
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with SRP Residential Land Use and Housing
Element Policy H.11.
“Policy H.12: Continue to designate land to provide a mix of choices (i.e., location, accessibility,
housing types, and urban and suburban neighborhood character) through the refinement plan update
process and through review of developer-initiated master plans..”
15
Findings
The proposed amendment to SDC Section 3.2-205B. states: ”Small Lot Residential District (SLR). Unless
otherwise directed by the City Council, application of the SLR District shall occur as part of a Refinement
Plan and/or Master Plan approval process.”
The reference above limits the application of the proposed SLR zoning district by requiring City Council
direction and the Refinement Plan/Master Plan approval process.
The proposed amendment to SDC Section 3.2-205B.1. states: “Establishes sites for residential
development where a mix of attached and detached single-family dwellings are permitted on small
lots/parcels….” The proposed amendment to SDC Section 4.7-140 states: “…duplexes are permitted
outright on corner lots/parcels in all residential districts, including the SLR District.”
The two references above refer to proposed SDC amendments that introduce a variety of housing
options for all income levels in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas.
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with SRP Residential Land Use and Housing
Element Policy H.12.
“Policy H.15: Update residential development standards to enhance the quality and affordability
of neighborhood infill development (e.g. partitions, duplex developments, transitional neighborhoods,
rehab housing, accessory dwelling units) and multifamily development.
Findings
The proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.7-142 adds Type I design standards for: duplexes in the
proposed SLR, and the existing MDR and HDR zoning districts and attached single-family dwellings in all
residential districts. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with SRP Residential Land
Use and Housing Element Policy H.15.
Conclusion
Staff has demonstrated that the proposed SDC amendments comply with all applicable Metro Plan and
local plan policies. SDC Section 5.6-115 Criterion A is met.
SDC Section 5.6-115 “B. Applicable State statutes; and;”
ORS 197.304 required Springfield to evaluate the sufficiency of its residential buildable land supply and
to establish a separate Springfield UGB. Springfield prepared the RLHNA and local housing policies that
meet the requirements of Oregon State-wide Planning Goal 10 (ORS 197.295 to 197.314, ORS 197.475 to
197.490, and OAR 600-008. The RLHNA and the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element were
adopted by Springfield and Lane County and acknowledged by DLCD in September 2011.
Conclusion
Staff has demonstrated that the proposed SDC amendments comply with all applicable State statutes.
16
SDC Section 5.6-115 “C. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
“To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in
all phases of the planning process.”
Findings
Springfield has an acknowledged citizen involvement program, the Committee for Citizen Involvement
(CCI), which was established in 1990 to ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of
the planning process. The Springfield Planning Commission is the CCI.
Staff prepared a Citizen Involvement Plan for adoption of the RLHNA, SRP Residential Land Use and
Housing Element, and the establishment of a separate Springfield UGB that was reviewed and approved
by the CCI in 2009.
That Citizen Involvement Plan included the formation of a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and
established a planning process to promote a dialogue and build relationships with the community. This
Citizen Involvement Plan was discussed in the staff report for the adoption of the RLHNA, SRP
Residential Land Use and Housing Element, and establishment of a separate Springfield UGB (Ord. 6268,
Case No. LRP 2009-00014); it will not be discussed further in this staff report.
A ranking of Land Use Efficiency Measures was considered and reviewed during the public review
process for the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element and the establishment of a separate
Springfield UGB by the: the CAC; Planning Commission; and City Council. The elements of the proposed
SDC amendments, including the establishment of a SLR zoning district and a minimum density in the LDR
zoning district received high priority, and therefore, are part of the proposed Phase 1 Land Use
Efficiency Measures.
DLCD Notice of these proposed SDC amendments was sent by Springfield on December 31, 2009. On
January 29, 2010, staff received comments from DLCD that were incorporated into the public hearing
draft amendments. The first evidentiary hearing by the Springfield and Lane County Planning
Commissions was held on February 17, 2010. The hearing was noticed as specified in SDC Section 5.2-
115. The proposed Phase 1 Land Use Efficiency Measures were Attachment G of the Planning
Commission packet. However, adoption of the proposed SDC amendments was deferred to a later date
and was not included in Ordinance 6268 adopted by Springfield and Lane County in 2011. The current
version of the proposed SDC amendments has been modified by further staff review with no substantive
changes.
A Springfield Planning Commission Work Session was held on December 4, 2012. The Planning
Commission made no changes to the proposed SDC amendments. Notice for the Springfield Planning
Commission public hearing scheduled for January 15, 2013 and the Springfield City Council public
hearing scheduled for February 19, 2013 has been provided in accordance with SDC Section 5.2-115.
The public process for adopting the proposed SDC amendments complies with Goal 1 because it is
consistent with Springfield’s acknowledged citizen involvement program.
17
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 LAND USE PLANNING
“To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions
related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions”
Findings
Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive plans be consistent with State-wide Planning Goals and that
implementing ordinances be consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans. The Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy document (local comprehensive plan2) that
provides a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area, and for Springfield in particular. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by DLCD on August 23, 1982 to
be in compliance with State-wide Planning Goals pursuant to ORS 197.245 and 197.250. In all cases, the
Metro Plan is the guiding document, and any refinement plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan.
The SDC also implements the policies and direction of the Metro Plan and adopted refinement plans and
specifies the procedures and criteria that are necessary for development approval.
In this case, the proposed SDC amendments do not require a Metro Plan amendment because the SLR
zoning district will be a second zoning option in the current Metro Plan LDR land use designation. The
proposed amendments comply with Goal 2 because the SDC implements Metro Plan policies and
establishes procedures to amend the SDC.
GOAL 2 EXCEPTION
Goal 2 provides procedures for Goal exceptions. An exception is a decision to exclude certain land from
the requirements of one or more applicable State-wide Planning Goals. There are no State-wide
Planning Goal exceptions requested for these proposed SDC amendments. Therefore, this portion of
Goal 2 does not apply.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND
“To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.”
Finding
Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands" by stating, in part, that they: “…do not include land within
acknowledged urban growth boundaries….”
2 “Comprehensive plan” means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local
government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including but not
limited to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources
and air and water quality management programs. “Comprehensive” means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area
covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. “General nature” means a
summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity
or use. A plan is “coordinated” when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of
Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. “Land” includes water, both surface and subsurface,
and the air. (Ref. ORS 197.015(5)
18
The proposed SDC amendments apply to property located completely within Springfield’s acknowledged
UGB, both within and outside of the city limits. All land in Springfield’s UGB has City zoning. Springfield
has the authority to apply its zoning between the city limits and UGB through an Intergovernmental
Agreement signed with Lane County in 1986. Land in Jasper-Natron and Glenwood is currently planned
and zoned for urban use and will continue to be upon adoption of these proposed SDC amendments.
No UGB expansion is proposed as part of these proposed SDC amendments.
These proposed SDC amendments do not affect land designated for agricultural use outside of
Springfield’s UGB. Therefore, Goal 3 is not applicable to the adoption of the proposed SDC amendments
because no agricultural plan designation or use is affected and Goal 3 excludes lands inside an
acknowledged UGB from the definition of agricultural lands.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 4 FOREST LAND
“To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest
economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous
growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound
management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational
opportunities and agriculture.”
Findings
OAR 660-006-0020 states: “Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and therefore, the
designation of forest lands is not required.”
The proposed SDC amendments apply to property located completely within Springfield’s acknowledged
UGB, both in and outside of the city limits. All land in Springfield’s UGB has City zoning. Springfield has
the authority to apply its zoning between the city limits and UGB through an Intergovernmental
Agreement signed with Lane County in 1986. Land in Jasper-Natron and Glenwood is currently planned
and zoned for urban use and will continue to be upon adoption of these proposed SDC amendments.
No UGB expansion is proposed as part of these proposed SDC amendments.
These proposed SDC amendments do not affect land designated for forest use outside of Springfield’s
UGB. All of these proposed SDC amendments apply to land within Springfield’s UGB; therefore, as
specified in OAR 660-006-20, Goal 4 does not apply.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN
SPACE
“To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.”
Findings
Goal 5 requires communities to inventory the following natural resources: Riparian corridors, including
Water and Riparian Areas and Fish Habitat; Wetlands; Wildlife Habitat; Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers;
State Scenic Waterways; Groundwater Resources; Approved Oregon Recreation Trails; Natural Areas;
Wilderness Areas; Mineral and Aggregate Resources; Energy Sources; and Cultural Areas.
19
Goal 5 encourages communities to maintain existing inventories of the following resources: Historic
Resources; Open Space; and Scenic Views and Sites. Springfield has adopted a list of Goal 5 resources
that have been acknowledged by DLCD over time. The proposed SDC amendments do not create or
amend Springfield’s list of Goal 5 resources, address specific requirements of Goal 5 and does not allow
new uses that could be conflicting with a significant Goal 5 resource site. Therefore, the proposed SDC
amendments comply with Goal 5.
However, the intent of the proposed SDC amendments is to establish the SLR zoning district and
minimum density standards as specified in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element. That said,
Goal 5 and applicable OARs under 660-023 will be addressed, if necessary, at the time the proposed SLR
zoning district is implemented either in Jasper-Natron, Glenwood or other location authorized by the
City Council as part of a Refinement Plan or Master Plan approval process.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 6 AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
“To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.”
Findings
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water
and land from impacts from those discharges. The proposed SDC amendments do not affect Springfield’s
ability to provide for clean air, water or land resource. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are
consistent with Goal 6.
However, the intent of the proposed SDC amendments is to establish the SLR zoning district and
minimum density standards as specified in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element. That said,
Goal 6 will be addressed, if necessary, at the time the proposed SLR zoning district is implemented
either in Jasper-Natron, Glenwood or other location authorized by the City Council as part of a
Refinement Plan or Master Plan approval process.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 7 AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
“To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.”
Findings
Goal 7 requires comprehensive plans to include provisions to protect life and property based on an
inventory of known areas of natural hazards including but not limited to floods, landslides and
earthquakes. Goal 7 prohibits development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards.
FLOODS
The following regulations apply in Springfield: Development within flood hazard areas is regulated by
FEMA policy, which is then adopted into the Metro Plan (Environmental Resources Element) and the
SDC (Section 3.3-400, Floodplain Overlay District). FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) enable
property and business owners to qualify for federally underwritten flood insurance. Both the named
areas for the proposed SLR zoning district, Jasper-Natron and Glenwood, are out of the floodway.
20
HILLSIDES
The Metro Hazard Plan (2009, revised) discusses areas on hillsides with high potential for surface debris
flows (movements in which loose soils, rocks and organic matter combine with entrained water to form
slurries that flow rapidly down slope) as well slope instability hazards. The Metro Plan states that local
governments must require site specific soil surveys and geologic studies where potential problems exist
(Metro Plan p. III-C-16). SDC Sections 3.3-500, Hillside Development Overlay District regulates hillside
development; 5.12-100 Land Division; and 5.17-100 Site Plan Review, require submittal of a geological
study that will offer proper safeguards during the development review process in a manner that
provides protection from any potential landslide hazards for hillside areas.
The southern portion of the Jasper-Natron area contains steep slopes. The proposed SLR zoning district
is not suitable for hillside areas because these areas already require larger lots/parcels, from 10,000
square feet to one acre, depending upon the percent slop. However, in order to increase density, the
SLR allows lot/parcels to be reduced to 3,000 square feet.
The Glenwood residential core area south of Franklin Boulevard is flat and will be able to support the
provisions of the proposed SLR zoning district.
The proposed SDC amendments do not affect Springfield’s restrictions on development in areas subject
to natural disasters and hazards. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments comply with Goal 7.
However, the intent of the proposed SDC amendments is to establish the SLR zoning district and
minimum density standards as specified in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element. That said,
Goal 7 will be addressed, if necessary, at the time the proposed SLR zoning district is implemented
either in Jasper-Natron, Glenwood or other location authorized by the City Council as part of a
Refinement Plan or Master Plan approval process.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 8 RECREATIONAL NEEDS
“To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to
provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.”
Findings
Goal 8 requires local governments to plan and provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
to “satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors.” The destination resort
provisions of Goal 8 apply to counties and therefore do not apply to Glenwood Phase 1.
Goal 8 defines three terms that are directly related to Glenwood Phase 1:
“Open Space -- means any land that is retained in a substantially natural condition or is improved for
recreational uses such as golf courses, hiking or nature trails or equestrian or bicycle paths or is
specifically required to be protected by a conservation easement. Open spaces may include ponds,
lands protected as important natural features, land preserved for farm or forest use and lands used as
buffers. Open space does not include residential lots or yards, streets or parking areas.”
“Recreation Areas, Facilities and Opportunities -- provide for human development and enrichment,
and include but are not limited to: open space and scenic landscapes; recreational lands; history,
21
archaeology and natural science resources; scenic roads and travelers; sports and cultural events;
camping, picnicking and recreational lodging; tourist facilities and accommodations; trails; waterway
use facilities; hunting; angling; winter sports; mineral resources; active and passive games and
activities.”
“Recreation Needs -- refers to existing and future demand by citizens and visitors for recreations
areas, facilities and opportunities.”
The provision for parks in the Eugene/Springfield area is specified in the Metro Plan’s Parks and
Recreation Facilities Element.
Parks and recreation services are currently provided through the Willamalane Park and Recreation
District to properties both within Springfield’s city limits and outside of the city limits, but within
Springfield’s UGB. Willamalane’s 20-year Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) was
adopted in 2004 by the Willamalane Board of Directors, Lane County and Springfield as a refinement to
the Metro Plan.3 The Proposed SDC amendments do not affect Willamalane’s provisions for recreation
facilities. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments comply with Goal 8.
The intent of the proposed SDC amendments is to establish the SLR zoning district and minimum density
standards as specified in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element. That said, Goal 8 will be
addressed, if necessary, at the time the proposed SLR zoning district is implemented either in Jasper-
Natron, Glenwood or other location authorized by the City Council as part of a Refinement Plan or
Master Plan approval process.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
“To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to
the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.”
Findings
Goal 9 requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for projected commercial and
industrial use.
While there is a direct relationship between economic development and providing for the housing needs
of Springfield’s citizens, the proposed SDC amendments do not change the plan designation of land in
excess of two acres within an existing UGB from an industrial use designation to a non-industrial use
designation, or another employment use designation to any other use designation. Thus, the proposed
SDC amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, Goal 9 does not
apply to the proposed SDC amendments.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 10 HOUSING
“To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.”
3 Willamalane is currently updating their Comp Plan that is scheduled for Springfield City Council and Lane County
Board of Commissioner adoption in early 2013..
22
Findings:
Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to encourage
the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels
commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. Oregon Administrative Rule 660
Division 8 defines standards for compliance with Goal 10. “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.”
In 2007, the Oregon Legislature required Eugene and Springfield to establish separate UGBs that
included separate 20 year residential lands inventories for each city. In response to House Bill 3337,
Springfield conducted a study to determine Springfield’s housing needs for 2010-2030 and to evaluate
the sufficiency of land available for residential uses within Springfield’s UGB. The Springfield RLHNA was
adopted by the City Council by Resolution 09-54 on December 7, 2009. The RLHNA along with the SRP
Residential Land Use and Housing Element and the establishment of a Springfield specific UGB was
adopted by City Council (Ordinance 6268) on June 20, 2011 and by the Lane County Board of
Commissioners (Ordinance PA1274) on June 6, 2011.
The residential land use policies included in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element together
with the technical analysis included in the RLHNA address Goal 10 (ref. LRP 2009-000120), including
goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions that supplement the Metro Plan Residential Land
Use and Housing Element (Chapter III-A), while demonstrating Springfield’s ongoing commitment to
increasing housing choice and residential densities within Springfield’s separate UGB.
The RLHNA states: “The last step in the analysis is to add in public and semi-public land needs. Table S-5
shows the reconciliation of land need and supply. The results show that Springfield has an overall surplus
of residential land, but has deficits in the High-Density Residential and Parks and Open Space categories.
Table S-5. Reconciliation of land need and supply, Springfield UGB, 2010
Source: ECONorthwest
The results lead to the following findings:
The LDR designation has a surplus of approximately 378 gross acres.
The MDR designation has a surplus of approximately 76 gross acres.
The HDR designation has a deficit of approximately 28 gross acres. At a minimum, the City will meet the deficit of 411
dwellings (21 acres) through its redevelopment strategies in Downtown and Glenwood. The additional seven acres of
public/semi-public land is intended to provide public open space for the higher density development, as well as any
needed public facilities. This need could potentially be met through a variety of approaches—from designating seven
Plan Designation
Residential
Land
Surplus/Deficit
(From Table S-4)
Public/Semi-
Public Land
Need
Total Surplus/
Deficit
Low Density Residential 455 77 378
Medium Density Residential 93 17 76
High Density Residential -21 7 -28
Parks and Open Space 300 -300
Government/Employment 62 Met through land need in EOA
Total 527 463 126
23
additional acres high-density residential to ensuring that land designated park and open space is provided adjacent to
HDR developments.
The Parks and Open Space designation has a deficit of 300 acres. This need does not imply that the City should expand
the UGB for parks and open space. The City has a surplus of buildable lands in the low and MDR plan designations that can provide land for future parks within those designations, consistent with the objectives of the adopted Park
and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. A portion of the parks and open space need can also be met on residentially
designated land that has constraints and therefore is not counted as buildable acres (e.g., ridgeline trail systems).
Since no surplus of land designated for HDR uses exists, the 21-acre HDR plan designation deficit has been increased
by seven (7) acres to provide parkland immediately adjacent to the proposed HDR district.
Government and employment land needs will be met through existing lands or land needs identified in the Springfield
Economic Opportunities Analysis.” (Ref. pp. iv-v)
The proposed SLR zoning district will be applied within the existing LDR Metro Plan land use designation
that shows a total surplus of 378 acres.
There are a number of applicable Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) that must also be addressed
concurrently with Goal 10.
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.”
The RLHNA applies City-wide and documents the amount of buildable land in each of the three primary
residential land use designations in Springfield identified in Table S-5, above. The RLHNA demonstrated
there is a surplus of land within the LDR Metro Plan designation. The intent of the proposed SLR zoning
district is to establish a minimum density of 8 dwelling units per net acre and allow a mix of housing
types. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with OAR 660-0008-0010.
660-008-0015 Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required
“Local approval standards, special conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed
housing must be clear and objective, and must not have the effect, either of themselves or
cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay.”
The proposed SDC amendments contain specific building design standards for most duplexes and all
attached single-family developments in all zoning districts (SDC Section 4.7-142). Building design
standards include choosing 66 items from the following list: dormers;, gables; recessed entries; covered
front porches; pillars or posts; eaves; window trim; bay windows; balconies; offsets in the building face;
offsets or breaks in roof elevations; decorative patterns on the exterior finish; and variation in façade
building material. The developer may utilize different combinations of design standards to create design
diversity within the development. The intent is to allow a developer to choose from existing building
plans that should result in reducing housing costs.
SDC Section 3.2-205 encourages a mix of housing types, specifically allowing duplexes and attached
single family dwellings, to be permitted outright under Type I staff review. The Type I review process
reduces unreasonable cost or delay by eliminating Planning Commission Discretionary Use approval.
24
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with OAR 660-0008-0015.
660-008-0020 Specific Plan Designations Required
“(1) Plan designations that allow or require residential uses shall be assigned to all buildable land.
Such designations may allow nonresidential uses as well as residential uses. Such designations may be
considered to be "residential plan designations" for the purposes of this division. The plan
designations assigned to buildable land shall be specific so as to accommodate the varying housing
types and densities identified in the local housing needs projection.”
The LDR, MDR and HDR Metro Plan residential land use designations have been addressed in the
adopted RLHNA and the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element. The focal point in these
proposed SDC amendments is the Metro Plan LDR land use designation. The RLHNA found that there is a
surplus of 378 gross acres in the Metro Plan LDR land use designation. The proposed SLR zoning district
will be a second permitted zoning district within the Metro Plan LDR land use designation; the LDR
zoning district is the other zoning district. The primary housing types that will be accommodated in the
proposed SLR zoning district are: duplexes and attached single-family dwellings. Therefore, the
proposed SDC amendments are consistent with OAR 660-0008-0020(1).
“(2) A local government may defer the assignment of specific residential plan designations only when
the following conditions have been met:
(a) Uncertainties concerning the funding, location and timing of public facilities have been identified in
the local comprehensive plan;
(b) The decision not to assign specific residential plan designations is specifically related to identified
public facilities constraints and is so justified in the plan; and
(c) The plan includes a time-specific strategy for resolution of identified public facilities uncertainties
and a policy commitment to assign specific residential plan designations when identified public
facilities uncertainties are resolved.”
The proposed SDC amendments do not require a new or modified Metro Plan residential land use
designation, the current Metro Plan LDR land use designation will continue to be utilized. It is the
addition of a new zoning district within the existing Metro Plan LDR land use designation that will occur
upon approval of the adopting Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent
with OAR 660-0008-0020(2).
660-008-0025 The Rezoning Process
A local government may defer rezoning of land within an urban growth boundary to maximum
planned residential density provided that the process for future rezoning is reasonably justified. If such
is the case, then:
(1) The plan shall contain a justification for the rezoning process and policies which explain how this
process will be used to provide for needed housing.
The justification for the SLR zoning district and applicable Metro Plan policies and SRP Residential Land
Use and Housing Element policies and implementation actions have been addressed elsewhere in this
staff report. However, staff intends to defer rezoning property to SLR until such time as the City Council
provides direction through the Refinement Plan and/or the Master Plan approval processes. Two
potential areas have been identified for further study to implement SLR development; one in Jasper-
25
Natron and the other in Glenwood. Nevertheless, additional refinement planning must occur before the
proposed SLR zoning district may be implemented in either of these areas. Therefore, the proposed SDC
amendments are consistent with OAR 660-0008-0025(1).
660-008-0030 Regional Coordination
“(1) Each local government shall consider the needs of the relevant region in arriving at a fair
allocation of housing types and densities”.
In 2007, the Oregon Legislature required Eugene and Springfield to establish separate urban growth
boundaries (UGB) that included separate 20 year residential lands inventories for both Eugene and
Springfield. In response to House Bill 3337, Springfield conducted a study to determine Springfield’s
housing needs for 2010-2030 and to evaluate the sufficiency of land available for residential uses within
Springfield’s UGB. The Springfield RLHNA was adopted by the City Council and Lane County in 2011.
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with OAR 660-0008-0030(1).
660-008-0035 Substantive Standards for Taking a Goal 2, Part II Exception Pursuant to ORS 197.303(3)
“(1) A local government may satisfy the substantive standards for exceptions contained in Goal 2, Part
II, upon a demonstration in the local housing needs projection, supported by compelling reasons and
facts, that:
(a) The needed housing type is being provided for elsewhere in the region in sufficient numbers to
meet regional needs;
(b) Sufficient buildable land has been allocated within the local jurisdiction for other types of housing
which can meet the need for shelter at the particular price ranges and rent levels that would have
been met by the excluded housing type; and
(c) The decision to substitute other housing types for the excluded needed housing type furthers the
policies and objectives of the local comprehensive plan, and has been coordinated with other affected
units of government.
(2) The substantive standards listed in section (1) of this rule shall apply to the ORS 197.303(3)
exceptions process in lieu of the substantive standards in Goal 2, Part II. The standards listed in section
(1) of this rule shall not apply to the exceptions process authorized by OAR 660-007-0360.”
The RLHNA was adopted by the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners in
2011. The proposed SDC amendments include the SLR zoning district. As stated under staff’s response to
Goal 2, there is no need for a Goal 2 exception. Therefore, OAR 660-008-0035 does not apply.
660-008-0040 Restrictions on Housing Tenure
“Any local government that restricts the construction of either rental or owner occupied housing on or
after its first periodic review shall include a determination of housing need according to tenure as part
of the local housing needs projection.”
The RLHNA and the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element have been adopted by both the
Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners in 2011. As stated previously, the
SDC currently lists three primary Metro Plan residential land use designations; LDR, MDR and HDR. The
SDC does not restrict the construction of either rental or owner occupied housing in any of these land
use designations. The adoption of the proposed SDC amendments will also not restrict the construction
26
of either rental or owner occupied housing in any of these land use designations. Therefore, OAR 660-
008-0040 does not apply.
The proposed SDC amendments comply with Goal 10 because Springfield has an adopted RLHNA and
SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element and the proposed SDC amendments will implement
specific plan policies and implementation actions cited elsewhere in this staff report.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 11 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
“To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to
serve as a framework for urban and rural development.”
Findings
In order to comply with Goal 11, Springfield has adopted the following documents:
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, revised 2004
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan, 2001
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area TransPlan
The Springfield Stormwater Management Plan, November 2008
The Springfield Stormwater Facilities Master Plan, October 2008
The Springfield Wastewater Master Plan, June 2008
The Springfield Conceptual Road Network Map, updated July, 2005
The Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan, adopted May, 1999
The Springfield Development Code, September 2007
The Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, 2002, as amended
The Springfield 2013-17 Capital Improvement Plan
660-011-0000 Purpose
“The purpose of this division is to aid in achieving the requirements of Goal 11, Public Facilities and
Services, OAR 660-015-0000(11), interpret Goal 11 requirements regarding public facilities and services
on rural lands, and implement ORS 197.712(2)(e), which requires that a city or county shall develop
and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population
greater than 2,500 persons. The purpose of the plan is to help assure that urban development in such
urban growth boundaries is guided and supported by types and levels of urban facilities and services
appropriate for the needs and requirements of the urban areas to be serviced, and that those facilities
and services are provided in a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement, as required by Goal 11. The
division contains definitions relating to a public facility plan, procedures and standards for developing,
adopting, and amending such a plan, the date for submittal of the plan to the Commission and
standards for Department review of the plan.”
OAR 660-011-0005(1) defines "Public Facility" to include: ” …water, wastewater, sanitary sewer, and
transportation facilities. …”
The Metro Plan addresses the provision of these and several other public facilities and services in
Springfield. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Services and Facilities Plan (PFSP), which has
27
been acknowledged by DLCD, is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan that guides the provision of public
infrastructure, including water, wastewater, storm water management, electricity, schools and solid
waste management within Springfield’s UGB.
The two areas that have been identified for possible SLR zoning, Jasper-Natron and Glenwood are
located within Springfield’s UGB, but outside of the city limits. In order for the SLR zoning district to
apply in these areas, the City Council would need to direct staff to proceed. For these two areas,
additional refinement planning will need to be completed and then a Springfield Zoning Map
amendment will be required. Finally, prior to development of any land outside of Springfield’s city limits,
property owners must execute an annexation agreement, which will stipulate responsibilities for
provision of public services prior to the initiation of an annexation application. Upon annexation, the
public facilities and services that are required under Goal 11 and the Metro Plan can be provided to
properties in the two areas referenced above.
The proposed SDC amendments comply with Goal 11 because existing public facilities and services
either have the capacity to serve future development in Jasper-Natron and/or Glenwood or future
public facilities can be provided in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner as discussed elsewhere in this
staff report.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 12 TRANSPORTATION
“To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.”
Findings
Applicable Transportation Regulations
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) - 2004
The Metro Plan serves as Eugene, Springfield and metropolitan Lane County’s long range policy
document (comprehensive plan), guiding land use for all three jurisdictions within the Plan’s
boundaries. The Metro Plan addresses all applicable State-wide planning goals either in the Plan
itself, or through supporting facility or master plans such as local TSPs, parks plans, etc. In order
to comply with State regulations, the Metro Plan provides a 20-year land supply. However, as part
of compliance with HB 3337, Springfield has established its own UGB (June 20, 2011) and ultimately a
separate, Springfield Transportation System Plan amendment to the Metro Plan will be adopted.
Applicable Metro Plan policies are addressed elsewhere in this staff report.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) - 2002
TransPlan is the current transportation element of the Metro Plan. While adopted as a refinement to
the Metro Plan, and therefore technically a land use plan, TransPlan is also intended as a system
plan that guides local and regional transportation system planning and development in the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. TransPlan also serves as Springfield’s facilities plan
(Transportation System Plan, or TSP) for identifying projects needed to meet the transportation
demand of residents over a 20-year planning horizon while addressing transportation issues and
making changes that can contribute to improvements in the region’s quality of life and economic
vitality. In addition to roadway facilities, TransPlan also calls for significant increases in the
amount and convenience of transit service, increases in the amount of bikeways and sidewalks,
28
and an expansion of the existing program of transportation demand management (TDM) travel
incentives. Because TransPlan is currently serving as the locally adopted TSP for Springfield, all of
its policies will be addressed as part of the current Springfield TSP update. Applicable TransPlan
policies are addressed elsewhere in this staff report.
Transportation Planning Rule Analysis and Findings
“660-012-0060
Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule,
unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use
regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on
projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part
of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of
the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that
would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not
meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Findings:
Both the existing LDR zoning district and the proposed SLR zoning district are/will be in the existing LDR
Metro Plan land use designation. The proposed SDC amendments do not amend a functional plan, an
acknowledged comprehensive plan (Metro Plan, including a residential land use designation) or the
Springfield Zoning Map. This application does amend the SDC, Springfield’s land use regulation.
The proposed SDC amendments also do not significantly affect a transportation facility because they do
not:
29
Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Result in any of the effects listed below:
Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not
meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
The primary purpose of the proposed SDC amendments is to establish: the SLR zoning district; and
minimum densities of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the existing LDR zoning district and 8 dwelling
units per net acre in the proposed SLR zoning district, as discussed elsewhere in this staff report.
Minimum densities encourage efficient land use by eliminating under building in the Metro Plan LDR
land use designation while making the provision of services more cost effective.
The applicable guiding documents regarding transportation planning in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area cited above affect development in the Metro Plan LDR land use designation based
upon the existing density ranges specified in the Metro Plan and the adopted SRP Residential Land Use
and Housing Element. There is no increase proposed for the high end of the density range of 14
dwelling units per net acre for both the existing LDR zoning district and the proposed SLR zoning district.
The SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element names the existing residential area on the south side
of Franklin Boulevard in Glenwood and a still undetermined area in Jasper Natron as potential SLR sites
However, the proposed SLR zoning district will not be initiated as part of these proposed SDC
amendments; it must be initiated by City Council action prior to a Refinement Plan (ref. SDC 5.6-100)
and/or Master Plan (ref. SDC 5.13-100) approval process. A Springfield Zoning Map amendment as part
of a Refinement Plan adoption/amendment will also require City Council legislative approval (ref. SDC
5.22-100B.). Goal 12 will be addressed during the review of these land use applications.
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments comply with OAR 660-12-0060(1) because they will not
significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility.
(7) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which meet all of
the criteria listed in subsections (a)–(c) below shall include an amendment to the comprehensive plan,
transportation system plan the adoption of a local street plan, access management plan, future street
plan or other binding local transportation plan to provide for on-site alignment of streets or
accessways with existing and planned arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site as
necessary to implement the requirements in OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) and 660-012-0045(3):
(a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more acres of land for
commercial use;
(b) The local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with OAR 660-012-
0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with Metro's requirement for
30
street connectivity as contained in Title 6, Section 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan; and
(c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as provided in section
(1).”
Findings:
The proposed SDC amendments only revise the SDC, Springfield’s land use regulations. Therefore, they
do not:
Result in the designation of two or more acres of land for commercial use. The Metro Plan LDR land
use designation is the only land use designation affected by the proposed SDC amendments; and
Significantly affect a transportation facility as provided in Section (1), as stated above.
To date, the TSP requirement has been met through the local and regionally adopted TransPlan.
However, Springfield has begun a TSP Update that will focus solely on Springfield’s jurisdiction, providing
better local transportation system guidance for Springfield and its citizens. The TSP will support the
Metro Plan and its identified land designations.
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments comply with OAR 660-12-0060(7) because Springfield has a
TSP (Subsection (b)) and the proposed SLR zoning district will not significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility, as stated above (Subsection c)). Subsection (a) does not apply because
no Metro Plan commercial land use designation or Springfield zoning district is part if this application.
“(9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a
zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the
following requirements are met.
(a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the
amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map;
(b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the
TSP; and
(c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an
urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the area was
exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment
that accounted for urbanization of the area.”
The proposed SDC amendments will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility,
as stated above, because: it is consistent with the Metro Plan LDR land use designation (Subsection (a);
Springfield has an adopted TSP (Subsection (b); and no UGB amendment is required (Subsection c).
The intent of the proposed SDC amendments is to establish the SLR zoning district and minimum density
standards as specified in the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element. For the record, the
proposed SDC amendments will not amend the Springfield Zoning Map at this time. As stated previously,
31
Jasper-Natron and Glenwood have been discussed as possible sites for SLR implementation. staff has
not received direction from the City Council to implement the proposed SLR zoning district in either of
these areas. However, In both cases, either a Refinement Plan amendment, or a new Refinement Plan,
as well as a Springfield Zoning Map amendment will be required. These actions will necessitate a
response to Goal 12.
The proposed SDC amendments do not: change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility; does not change the standards implementing a functional classification, do not
allow types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent
with the functional classification; and will not reduce the performance standards below the minimal
acceptable level identified in the TSP. The level of development currently permitted through existing
and amended SDC regulations will remain the same. Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments are
consistent with Goal 12.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 13
ENERGY CONSERVATION
“To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.”
Finding
When energy was cheap and easy to come by, cities were developed with little regard for energy
consumption, in terms of travel patterns, use of renewable resources and energy efficient building
materials and methods. As the availability of energy has decreased and costs have increased, the
realization that resources were not in everlasting supply became evident. Cities have not traditionally
played a major and direct role in the development of new energy supplies. However, a city government
uses or controls energy in many ways and can develop policies and development regulations to promote
energy conservation. With a limited supply of energy available, and demand continuing to increase,
conservation actions can postpone costly development of new power generation.
Establishment of energy efficient programs is also less expensive than building new power plants and
avoids negative environmental impacts.
Springfield has adopted the following standards/policies to address energy efficiency:
The Oregon Residential Specialty Code 2008 (Chapter 11, Energy Efficiency).
The Oregon Structural Specialty Code 2007 (Chapter 13, Energy Efficiency). Both codes have
impacted building practices through stricter regulation and required performance standards and
will play a significant role in energy conservation now and in the future.
OAR 660-12-(000-070) requires jurisdictions to reduce vehicle miles traveled by 10% by the year
2015; TransPlan establishes nodes to comply with the OAR through promoting efficient
transportation systems, mixed use development, encouraging alternatives to auto trips, and
making the design of new development more amenable to users of alternative transportation
such as carpooling, walking, bicycling and transit. Transportation systems and land use patterns
are directly linked to energy conservation goals and have the potential to impact energy use.
The Springfield Development Code (various standards).
32
In addition:
The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan emphasizes reducing, reusing, recycling and
recovering energy from waste, before land filling. Awareness of solid waste management
reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery of resources as a way to conserve energy has increased
and programs have been put in place to encourage these activities.
SUB has an energy conservation program for residential, commercial and industrial customers.
The Metro Plan’s Energy Element provides policies for energy conservation.
Goal 13 is primarily directed at the development of local energy policies and implementing provisions.
There is no implementing rule that clarifies the requirements of Goal 13. However, Goal 13 lists the
following guidelines:
“A. PLANNING
1. Priority consideration in land use planning should be given to methods of analysis and
implementation measures that will assure achievement of maximum efficiency in energy
utilization.
2. The allocation of land and uses permitted on the land should seek to minimize the depletion of
non-renewable sources of energy.
3. Land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re-use vacant land
and those uses which are not energy efficient.
4. Land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, combine increasing density gradients
along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy efficiency.
5. Plans directed toward energy conservation within the planning area should consider as a major
determinant the existing and potential capacity of the renewable energy sources to yield useful
energy output. Renewable energy sources include water, sunshine, wind, geothermal heat and
municipal, forest and farm waste. Whenever possible, land conservation and development actions
provided for under such plans should utilize renewable energy sources.
B. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Land use plans should be based on utilization of the following techniques and implementation
devices which can have a material impact on energy efficiency:
a. Lot size, dimension, and siting controls;
b. Building height, bulk and surface area;
c. Density of uses, particularly those which relate to housing densities;
d. Availability of light, wind and air;
e. Compatibility of and competition between competing land use activities; and
f. Systems and incentives for the collection, reuse and recycling of metallic and nonmetallic
waste.”
While the proposed SDC amendments do not directly affect any of Springfield’s or the Springfield Utility
Board’s energy conservation measures or programs, upon implementation, the proposed SLR zoning
district will:
Reduce lot/parcel sizes by establishing a 3,000 square foot minimum size requirement.
Allow a mix of housing types, including attached single-family dwellings that will reduce energy
consumption.
33
Require a minimum density of 8 dwelling units per net acre in the SLR zoning district and 6
dwelling units per acre in the LDR zoning district.
Promote applicable energy efficiency requirements established by the Building Specialty Codes.
Therefore, the proposed SDC amendments comply with Goal 13.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 14
URBANIZATION
“To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban
population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land,
and to provide for livable communities.”
Finding:
Goal 14 requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and then plan and zone enough
land to meet those needs. Staff’s response to Goal 10 in this staff report address this topic. The
proposed SDC amendments will apply to land already within the city limits and will not necessitate the
need for an UGB amendment. The proposed SDC amendments are intended to aid efficient
development/redevelopment for urban uses, thereby facilitating the “efficient use of land” and “livable
communities” aspects of Goal 14. Development/redevelopment in the proposed SLR zoning district
cannot commence without City Council direction requiring a Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan
application process and annexation to Springfield to permit connection to wastewater facilities. Future
development approval in the SLR zoning district will increase and intensify land use within the city limits,
alleviating pressure to urbanize rural lands. Staff’s response to Goal 11 demonstrates the areas named
for SLR implementation, Jasper-Natron and Glenwood is either served or can be served with public
facilities and services to allow development/redevelopment to occur as proposed.
The proposed SDC amendments comply with Goal 14 because Springfield has adopted the RLHNA and
the SRP Residential Land Use and Housing Element; all development within the SLR zoning district will
occur within Springfield’s city limits; and no UGB expansion will be necessary.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY
“To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and
recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.”
Findings
The Willamette River is recognized as a valuable natural resource that needs enhancement and
protection. The Willamette Greenway is a 150-foot swath established under Goal 15 and ORS 390.318
that runs between Glenwood on the west and the remainder of Springfield on the east from the I-5
Bridges to the southern tip of Glenwood. SDC Sections 3.4-280 (Glenwood Riverfront) and 3.3-300 (the
remainder of Springfield) contain regulations that apply to development within this area. Currently, any
activity in the Willamette Greenway (WG) Overlay District involving intensification of any use, change in
use, or development requires Type III Discretionary Use and concurrent Site Plan Review approval from
the Planning Commission and conformance with the Willamette Greenway development criteria.
34
However, potential SLR sites in Jasper-Natron and Glenwood are not adjacent to the Willamette River.
The proposed SDC amendments do not contain any changes that affect the regulation of areas within
the Willamette River Greenway.
Therefore, Goal 15 does not apply to these proposed SDC amendments.
However, if in the future, the City Council directs staff to implement the proposed SLR zoning district in
an area that is adjacent to the Willamette River; Goal 15 will be addressed as part of a Refinement Plan
or Master Plan approval and Springfield Zoning Map amendment processes.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES
“To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and
associated wetlands; and To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate
restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's
estuaries.”
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 17: COASTAL SHORELANDS
“To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and
benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and
aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of
the adjacent coastal waters; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse
effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of
Oregon’s coastal shorelands”.
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 18: BEACHES AND DUNES
“To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and
benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property from
natural or man-induced actions associated with these areas.”
STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES
“To conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term
ecological, economic, and social value and benefits to future generations.”
Findings
There is no estuarine, coastal, beach and dune or ocean resources in Springfield or the metropolitan
area. The proposed SDC amendments will not affect compliance with Goals 16-19. Therefore, Goals 16-
19 do not apply.
Conclusion
Staff has demonstrated that the proposed SDC amendments comply with all applicable State-wide
Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
35
STAFF REPORT CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings and conclusions, the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable
SDC amendment criteria of approval specified in Section 5.16-115A.-C. This staff report demonstrates
that proposed SDC amendments meet State mandated regulations regarding the implementation of
Land Use Efficiency Measure that are required as part of the RLHNA and the SRP Residential Land Use
and Housing Element.
Staff recommends that the Springfield Planning Commission approve the proposed SDC amendments
and advise the City Council to approve these amendments at their public hearing scheduled for
February 19,2013. 2013.
36
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR:
AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS:]
3.2-100; 3.2-205; 3.2-210:3.2-215; 3.2-605; 4.7-140; 4.7-140; 4.7-142; ]
4.7-155; 4.7-233; 5.4-100; 5.12-120; 5.12-130; and 6.1-110 ] LRP 2009-00015
NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City
Council regarding proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC), Phase 1 Land Use
Efficiency Measures, which implement the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Residential Land Use
and Housing Element policies to establish:
o The Small Lot Residential (SLR) zoning district that facilitates development of attached and detached
single-family dwelling types on small lots/parcels as an outright permitted use. These housing types
provide additional affordable housing options and allow more residential dwelling units than would
be achieved by building only detached homes. The SLR zoning district is intended to be a tool for
future planning purposes and will be applied on a case-by case basis as directed by the City Council
through the Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan approval processes;
o Density ranges in all residential zoning districts that will utilize the term “net” acre instead of
“developable” or “gross” acre to be consistent with the Metro Plan and SRP Residential Land Use
and Housing Element;
o A minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the Low Density Residential zoning district
(LDR) and 8 dwelling units per net acre in the SLR zoning district. Minimum densities reduce sprawl,
eliminate under building in residential zoning districts and make the provision of services more cost
effective The maximum density in these two residential zoning districts is 14 dwelling units per net
acre. There is no change in the maximum density;
o Base zone standards for the SLR zoning district;
o Type I design standards for: duplexes in the SLR, Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High
Density Residential (HDR) zoning districts; and attached single-family dwellings in all residential
zoning districts;
o Siting standards for duplexes in all residential zoning districts;
o Additions to and/or revisions of definitions pertaining to “dwellings” in support of the SLR zoning
district; and, in addition;
o “Housekeeping” amendments pertaining to: RV siting standards and Future Development Plans.
Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing and changed hearing dates caused by the written
record being held open has been provided, pursuant to SDC Section 5.2-115.
37
On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a work session and on January 15, 2013, a public
hearing on the proposed SDC amendments. The staff report and written comments were entered into
the record.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendments are consistent with the criteria of SDC Section
5.6-115. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff
Report and Findings and the additional information submitted for the January 15, 2013 meeting.
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that approval of File Numbers LRP 2009-00015 be
GRANTED and a RECOMMENDATION for approval be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for their
consideration on February 19, 2013.
__________________________________ _____________
Planning Commission Chairperson Date
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
11/13/12
1
SDC AMENDMENTS PHASE 1 LAND USE EFFICIENCY MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 REFINEMENT PLAN
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND HOUSING ELEMENT
Commentary: The proposed Land Use Efficiency Measures were originally reviewed by the Springfield
and Lane County Planning Commissions in 2010. The highlighted text below indicates additional
“housekeeping” text amendments added since that time.
OVERVIEW
Section Proposed to be Amended Reason for Amendment
3.2-100 Adds Small Lot Residential District (SLR) to the base zoning
district list; and adds a reference to additional Mixed Use
Districts in Glenwood
3.2-205 Establishes a minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre
in the LDR District; adds the SLR District description; and
amends other residential district descriptions
3.2-210 Adds uses for the SLR District; and clarifies RV siting standards
3.2-215 Adds base zone development standards for the SLR District; and
Specifies when certain development standards can be
decreased or increased in the MDR and HDR Districts.
3.2-605 Adds a reference to recently adopted mixed-use districts in
Glenwood
4.7-100 Amends the Title Page to add duplex and attached single-family
design standards
4.7-140 Amends text for duplex siting requirements in all residential
districts.
4.7-142 Adds Type I design standards for: duplexes in the SLR, MDR and
HDR Districts and attached single-family dwellings in all
residential districts
4.7-155 Changes “developable” to “net” acre.
4.7-233 Adds a new Section with a requirement for a mix of housing
types in SLR developments
11/13/12
2
5.4-100 Adds a Type I staff review process to Table 5.4-1, Development
Applications, for duplex and attached single-family dwelling
design standards
5.12-120 References SDC residential densities for Future Development
Plans in the land division process (see also 3.3-825)
5.12-130 Adds a condition of approval for recording of Future
Development Plans with the Subdivision/Partition Plat (see also
3.3-825)
6.1-110 Adds/revises definitions pertaining to “dwellings” in support of
the proposed SDC amendments
Commentary: Proposed text is underlined and highlighted for ease of review. Text proposed to be
deleted is [struck through].
3.2-100 Base Zoning Districts
Commentary: The proposed Small Lot Residential SLR District is added to the list of base zoning districts;
and additional Mixed-Use zones in the recently approved in Glenwood Refinement Plan Update are
referenced for SDC user convenience. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan is also referenced.
The Base Zoning Districts implement policies of the Metro Plan, Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and
any applicable refinement plan or plan district; regulate the use of land, structures and buildings; and
protect the public health, safety and welfare. The following base zoning districts are established
consistent with applicable Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan designations:
Section Base Zoning District Name Metro Plan Designation1
3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts
LDR Low Density Residential Low Density Residential
SLR Small Lot Residential Low Density Residential
MDR Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
HDR High Density Residential High Density Residential
3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts
NC Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Facilities(1)
CC Community Commercial Community Commercial Centers
MRC Major Retail Commercial Major Retail Center
GO General Office Community Commercial Center & Major Retail
Commercial Center
3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts
CI Campus Industrial Campus Industrial
11/13/12
3
LMI Light-Medium Industrial Light Medium Industrial
HI Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial
SHI Special Heavy Industrial Special Heavy Industrial
3.2-500 MS Medical Services District (2)
3.2-600 Mixed Use Districts(3)
MUC Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Uses
MUE Mixed Use Employment Mixed Uses
MUR Mixed Use Residential Mixed Uses
3.2-700 PLO Public Land and Open Space Public and Semi-Public
3.2-800 QMO Quarry and Mining Operations Sand and Gravel
(1) Low, Small Lot Residential, Medium, and High Density Residential
(2) Medium, High Density Residential, Community Commercial Center; Major Retail Center, and Mixed Use
(3) See also Section 3.4-245 for additional Mixed Use Districts specific to Glenwood
3.2-205 Establishment of Residential Zoning Districts
Commentary: Introduction -The proposed amendments to Section 3.2-205 implement Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan policies addressing Springfield’s housing needs and 20-year residential land supply by
establishing a new Small Lot Residential (SLR) District. The SLR District may be applied in specific areas
that are designated Low Density Residential in the Metro Plan and the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
when directed by the City Council. The proposed residential district descriptions now differentiate
residential districts by primary building type.
In addition, while both terms “developable” acre and “net” acre are defined the same (the number of
dwelling units per each acre of land in residential use, excluding from the acreage dedicated streets and
alleys, neighborhood parks and public facilities, the current term “developable” acre is changed to “net”
acre to be consistent with Metro Plan Residential Density Policy A.9 (ref. P. III-A-7) and the Springfield
2030 Refinement Plan. The term “net” acre will be applicable to all residential districts in Springfield.
Finally, the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan’s Residential Land Use and Housing Element Policy H1.,
Implementation Action 1.1 states: “Convert density ranges in the Springfield Development Code from
gross to net densities….This plan converts Metro Plan gross densities to net densities as follows:
Residential Low Density 6-14 dwelling units per acre;* Residential Special Density (the proposed Small Lot
Residential District) 8-14 dwelling units per acre; Residential Medium Density 14-28 dwelling units per
acre; Residential High Density 28-42 dwelling units per acre; Residential Mixed Use in Nodal
Development Overlay and transit corridors – Minimum and maximum densities to be determined
through the Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan process. The proposed density ranges in the residential
districts are consistent with Residential Land Use and Housing Element Implementation Action H1, cited
above.
*Note: More restrictive standards apply in the Hillside Development Overlay District where larger lot
sizes are required to compensate for slope constraints and engineering requirements.”
The following residential zoning districts are established where the minimum level of urban services is
provided:
11/13/12
4
[A. Low Density Residential District (LDR). The LDR District establishes sites for residential
development where the maximum dwelling units per developable acre permitted is 10,
consistent with the provisions of this Code. Fractions will be rounded down to the next whole
number.]
Commentary: Low Density Residential Minimum Density - The proposed SDC amendments establish a
minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the LDR District. Springfield’s challenge is to increase
utilization of a finite land supply and increase opportunities for constructing single-family homes
(detached and attached) in the LDR designation to meet demand and demographic trends addressing
housing affordability and choice.
Currently, there is no minimum density standard in the LDR District. The proposed minimum density of 6
dwelling units per net acre would push a slightly higher density and a greater diversity of housing choices
on flat sites. The Hillside Overlay District is exempt from the proposed minimum.
Springfield’s “needed” overall density for single-family dwellings in the RLHNA is 5.5 dwelling units per
net acre (ref. Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis p. 61), a slight increase over the density level
achieved 2000-2008. The RLHNA stated that single-family detached dwelling types averaged a density of
5.4 dwelling units per net acre from 2000-2008, while manufactured homes achieved a lower density of
4.6 dwelling units per net acre. This density average includes lots in the slope-constrained Hillside
Development (HD) Overlay District that require larger lot sizes and thus result in even lower densities. At
this time, in the HD Overlay District, the proposed minimum density standard of 6 dwelling units per net
acre is not achievable because lot/parcel sizes are regulated by percent of slope based upon geotechnical
engineering standards: 15-25 percent of slope requires 10,000 square feet; 25-35 percent of slope
requires 20,000 square feet; and over 35 percent of slope requires 40,000 square feet. Consequently, the
densities range from 1 to 4 dwelling units per net acre.
The text “Density fractions will be rounded up to the next whole number” was wording requested by
DLCD during their review of these proposed SDC amendments in 2009. This statement is applicable to all
residential districts in Springfield. Rounding up the 5.5 dwelling unit per net acre density in the LDR
District the justification for the proposed 6 dwelling unit per net acre minimum density in the LDR
District.
A. Low Density Residential District (LDR). Unless specified elsewhere in this Code, the LDR
District applies within the LDR designation and:
1. Establishes sites for residential development where primarily detached single-
family dwellings and duplexes are permitted with a density range of 6-14
dwelling units per net acre. Density fractions will be rounded up to the next
whole number.
Commentary: The proposed text “limited range of non-residential uses” are those permitted non-
residential uses specified in Section 3.2-210 (such as churches, schools and parks), and the Neighborhood
Commercial District that is also allowed in residential designations as discussed in the Metro Plan
Residential Land Use Designation (ref. P. II-G-3). This statement is applicable to all residential zoning
districts in Springfield.
11/13/12
5
2. Provides for a limited range of neighborhood uses that provide services for
residents.
Commentary: Small Lot Residential District - Springfield 2030 Plan Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Element Housing Policy H7 states: “Continue to develop and update regulatory options and
incentives to encourage and facilitate development of more attached and clustered [Cottage Cluster]
single-family housing types in the low density and medium density districts.” Implementation Actions 7.1
and 7.2 state: “Establish a small lot (3,000 square feet minimum lot size) special low-moderate density
zoning district with a density range of 8-14 du/acre to:
support development of smaller single-family detached and attached dwelling housing types;
support a greater diversity of housing mix; and
provide a moderate transition zone between lower and higher density neighborhoods….
Apply small lot zoning (3,000 square feet minimum lot size) to infill opportunity sites identified in
neighborhood planning processes.”
The proposed SLR District is a new zone. Utilization of the SLR District must be initiated by the Springfield
City Council. The intent is to apply the SLR District to land designated Low Density Residential during a
Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan approval process. The SLR District permits attached single-family
dwellings such as townhouses and rowhouses outright, while currently, in the LDR District, they are
permitted only upon Discretionary Use approval from the Planning Commission. The existing residential
neighborhood south of Franklin Boulevard to be evaluated as part of Glenwood Phase 2 and the Jasper-
Natron area have been called out for potential SLR implementation in the Springfield 2030 Plan Land Use
and Housing Element. The proposed SLR District will provide for more intense development by allowing
smaller lot/parcel sizes and a higher minimum density than the LDR District (8 vs. 6 dwelling units per net
acre). The minimum density necessary to support bus transit is 8 dwelling units per net acre. Both
proposed locations for SLR implementation are/will be on LTD bus routes.
B. Small Lot Residential District (SLR). Unless otherwise directed by the City Council,
application of the SLR District shall occur as part of a Refinement Plan and/or Master
Plan approval process. The SLR District applies within the LDR designation and:
1. Establishes sites for residential development where a mix of attached and
detached single-family dwellings are permitted on small lots/parcels with a
density range of 8-14 dwelling units per net acre. Density fractions will be
rounded up to the next whole number.
2. Provides for a limited range of neighborhood uses that provide services for
residents.
[B. Medium Density Residential District (MDR). The MDR District establishes sites for
residential development where single-family or multiple family dwellings are permitted
with a minimum density of more than 10 units per developable acre and a maximum
density of 20 units per developable acre, consistent with the provisions of this Code.
Fractions will be rounded down to the next whole number. Land divisions shall not be
used to diminish the minimum density standard.]
11/13/12
6
Commentary: The proposed amendment does not change the existing MDR density range; it does
change “developable acre” to “net acre”.
C. Medium Density Residential District (MDR). The MDR District applies within the MDR
designation and:
1. Establishes sites for residential development where primarily multi-family
dwellings are permitted and the density range is 14-28 dwelling units per net
acre. Density fractions will be rounded up to the next whole number. As
specified in Section 3.2-215, Footnote 16, MDR lot area and dimension
standards may be reduced through the Subdivision application process in order
to meet density standards.
2. Provides for a limited range of neighborhood uses that provide services for
residents.
[C. High Density Residential District (HDR). The HDR District establishes sites for residential
development where single-family or multiple family dwellings are permitted with a
minimum density of more than 20 units per developable acre and a maximum density of
30 units per developable acre, consistent with the provisions of this Code. Fractions will
be rounded down to the next whole number. Land divisions shall not be used to
diminish the minimum density standard.]
Commentary: The proposed amendment allows higher minimum and maximum HDR densities in specific
instances (see the exception, below). For example, in the recently adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan
Update, Subarea A on the north side of Franklin Boulevard, which is zoned and designated Residential
Mixed-Use, has a minimum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre and no maximum density limitation.
The proposed amendment also changes “developable acre” to “net acre”.
D. High Density Residential District (HDR). The HDR District applies within the HDR
designation and:
1. Establishes sites for residential development where primarily multi-family
dwellings are permitted and the density range is 28-42 dwelling units per net
acre. Density fractions will be rounded up to the next whole number. As
specified in Section 3.2-215, Footnote 16, HDR lot area and dimension standards
may be reduced through the Subdivision application process in order to meet
density standards.
EXCEPTION: The minimum and/or maximum density may be increased in the
Nodal Development Overlay District and transit corridors as determined through
the Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan process.
2. Provides for a limited range of neighborhood uses that provide services for
residents.
11/13/12
7
3.2-210 Schedule of Use Categories
The following uses are permitted in the districts as indicated, subject to the provisions, additional
restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not specifically listed may be approved as
specified in Section 5.11-100.
“P” = PERMITTED USE subject to the standards of this Code.
“S” = SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS subject to special locational and/or siting standards as
specified in Section 4.7-100.
“D” = DISCRETIONARY USE subject to review and analysis under Type III procedure (Section 5.9-100) at
the Planning Commission or Hearings Official level.
“N” = NOT PERMITTED
Commentary:”N/A” is added because there are now two Sections (4.7-140 and 4.7-142) applicable to
duplex standards. The “N/A’ means that certain standards do not apply to a particular zone.
“N/A” = NOT APPLICABLE
“*” = SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED
Commentary: The proposed SLR District uses are added to the residential district use list. In the SLR
District, attached single-family dwellings and duplexes on corner lots are permitted outright; in the
existing LDR District attached dwelling units other than duplexes on corner lots/parcels require Site Plan
Review and Discretionary Review approval by the Planning Commission. While there are a few
differences between the current LDR and the SLR Districts, the proposed use list is based on uses allowed
in the current LDR District.
Commentary: Additional text pertaining to RVs, a “housekeeping” amendment, is now more specific.
Use Categories/Uses
Zoning Districts
LDR SLR MDR HDR
Residential Uses
Dwellings
Accessory dwelling unit (Section 5.5-100) P P N N
Attached single-family dwellings (Section 4.7-233) D* P P* P*
Cluster subdivision (Sections 3.2-230 and 5.12-100) P P P P
Condominiums (Section 4.7-135) S* S P* P*
Cottage cluster D* P* P* N
Detached single-family dwellings (Section 4.7-233) P P P P
Duplexes in the LDR District (Section 4.7-140) S N/A N/A N/A
Duplexes and attached single-family dwellings in the SLR, N/A S S S
11/13/12
8
Use Categories/Uses
Zoning Districts
LDR SLR MDR HDR
MDR and HDR Districts (Section 4.7-142)
Manufactured dwelling park (Section 3.2-235) S* P* N N
Manufactured home P P P N
Manufactured home as a temporary residential use (Section
4.8-105)
S* N N N
Manufactured home subdivision P P N N
Mobile home P N N N
Multiple family dwelling including triplexes, 4-plexes, quads,
quints, and apartment complexes over 4 units.
N N P* P*
Prefabricated dwellings P P P* P*
RVs as a permanent new residential use on a lot/parcel N N N N
RVs in existing RV or Manufactured Dwelling Parks, unless
the park rules prohibit the replacement of RVs
P N N N
RV’s as a temporary residential use on a lot/parcel upon
approval of an Emergency Medical Hardship application
(Section 5.10-100) P N N N
Zero Lot Line dwelling P P P P
Group Care Facilities (Section 4.7-155)
Foster homes for over 5 children P* N P* P*
Halfway houses N N D* D*
Residential care facilities with more than 15 persons include:
Group care homes, congregate care facilities, nursing homes
and retirement homes D* N S* S*
Shelter Homes for abused and battered persons P N P* P*
Other Care Facilities
Adult Day Care—facilities up to 12 adults P N P P
Adult Day Care—facilities with more than 13 adults (abutting
an arterial street)
P* N P* P*
Adult Day Care—facilities with more than 13 adults (abutting
a collector or local street)
D* N P* P*
Child Care Home Facility—1 to 5 children P P P P
Child Care Group Home Facility—6 to 12 children P P P P
Child Care Center—13 or more children (abutting an arterial
street) (Section 4.7-125)
S* N S* S*
Child Care Center—13 or more children (abutting a collector
or local street) (Section 4.7-125)
D N S* S*
Residential Facilities—6 to 15 persons P N P* P*
Residential Home—5 or fewer persons P P P P
Lodging
Bed and breakfast facilities (Section 4.7-120) S* S* S* S*
Boarding and rooming houses (Section 4.7-215): 1 to 2
bedrooms
P*
P*
P*
P*
11/13/12
9
Use Categories/Uses
Zoning Districts
LDR SLR MDR HDR
Boarding and rooming houses (Section 4.7-215): 3 to 5
bedrooms
S*
S*
P*
P*
Youth hostels N N D* D*
Public and Institutional Uses
Churches (Section 4.7-130) D* D* D* D*
Educational facilities—Public/Private elementary/middle
schools (Section 4.7-195)
1 to 5 students in a private home (in a 24-hour period) P* P* P* P*
6 or more students (Section 4.7-195) D* D* D* D*
Parks—Neighborhood and private (Section 4.7-200) P/D* P/D* D* D*
Commercial Uses
Home Occupation (Section 4.7-165) S S S S
Professional offices (Section 4.7-190) S* S* S* S*
Residential dwelling units as temporary sales offices (Section
4.8-130)
P P P P
Miscellaneous Uses
Accessory structures (Section 4.7-105) S S S S
Agricultural structures P P P P
Cultivation of undeveloped land P P P P
Temporary sales/display of produce (Section 4.8-125) S S N N
Tree felling and removal (Section 5.19-100) P P P P
Public Utility Facilities
Public Utility Facilities - High impact facilities (Section 4.7-
160)
S* S* S* S*
Public Utility Facilities - Low impact facilities P P P P
Certain Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities Section
4.3-145
Section
4.3-145
Section
4.3-145
Section
4.3-145
3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards
Commentary: The proposed SLR District:
1. Allows for a minimum lot/parcel size of 3,000 square feet and a reduced street frontage of 30 feet in
order to increase residential densities.
2. Does not allow panhandle lots/parcels because this configuration is impractical with the proposed
reduced lot/parcel size of 3,000 square feet and the street frontage of 30 feet.
3. Allows for an increased impervious surface coverage standard of 60 percent on 3,000 square foot
lots/parcels in order to compensate for the smaller lot/parcel size.
4. Establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet to accommodate three story structures, the same
as the MDR and HDR District. The building height standard in the LDR District is 30 feet.
11/13/12
10
Commentary: Footnotes (16)-(18) are added to allow for a reduction of certain standards in order to
better meet density requirements. Footnote (19) is added to allow for additional building height in the
MDR and HDR District, under specific circumstances.
The following base zone development standards are established.
Residential Zoning District
Development
Standard
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
Small Lot
Residential (SLR)
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
High Density
Residential (HDR)
Standard Lots/Parcels
Minimum Area:
East-West Streets 4,500 square feet 3,000 square feet
4,500 square feet
(15)
4,500 square feet
(15)
North-South Streets 5,000 square feet 3,000 square feet
5,000 square feet
(15)
5,000 square feet
(15)
Minimum Street
Frontage:
East-West Streets 45 feet 30 feet 45 feet (15)
45 feet (15)
North-South Streets 60 feet 30 feet 60 feet (15)
60 feet (15)
Duplex Corner Lots/Parcels (1)(2)
Minimum/Maximum
Area: (1) 6,000 square feet 6,000 square feet
6,000 square feet
(15)
6,000 square feet
(15)
Maximum Area (2) 10,000 square feet 9,000 square feet 9,000 square feet
9,000 square feet
Minimum Street
Frontage:
East-West Streets 45 feet 45 feet 45 feet (15)
45 feet (15)
North-South Streets 60 feet 60 feet 60 feet (15)
60 feet (15)
Panhandle Lots/Parcels (See Section 3.2-220 Additional Panhandle Lot/Parcel Development Standards)
Single Panhandle: (16) Not permitted (16) (16)
Minimum Area in Pan
Portion 4,500 square feet Not applicable 4,500 square feet
4,500 square feet
Minimum Street
Frontage 20 feet Not applicable 20 feet 20 feet
11/13/12
11
Multiple Panhandles: (16) Not permitted (16) (16)
Minimum Area in Pan
Portion 4,500 square feet Not applicable 4,500 square feet 4,500 square feet
Minimum Street
Frontage
26 feet total, each
individual frontage
is based upon the
number of
panhandles.
Not applicable
26 feet total, each
individual frontage
is based upon the
number of
panhandles.
26 feet total, each
individual frontage
is based upon the
number of
panhandles.
Lots/Parcels on bulb portion of a cul-de-sac
Minimum Area 6,000 feet 3,000 square feet 6,000 feet (15) 6,000 feet (15)
Minimum Street
Frontage 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet (15) 35 feet (15)
Lots/Parcels within the Hillside Development Overlay District (Section 3.3-500)
< 15 percent slope: Not Permitted
Minimum Area 10,000 square feet Not applicable 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Minimum Street
Frontage 60 feet Not applicable 60 feet 60 feet
15-25 percent slope: Not Permitted
Minimum Area 10,000 square feet Not applicable 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Minimum Street
Frontage 90 feet Not applicable 90 feet 90 feet
25-35 percent slope: Not permitted
Minimum Area 20,000 square feet Not applicable 20,000 square feet 20,000 square feet
Minimum Street
Frontage 150 feet Not applicable 150 feet 150 feet
> 35 percent slope: Not permitted
Minimum Area 40,000 square feet Not applicable 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet
Minimum Street
Frontage 200 feet Not applicable 200 feet 200 feet
Lots/Parcels in the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District (Section 3.3-800)
Lot/Parcel Area The creation of new lots/parcels in the City’s urbanizable area shall be either 10 acres,
5 acres or shall meet the area standards of this Section when approved through the
Partition process specified in Section 5.12-100.
Maximum Lot/Parcel
Coverage (3) 45 percent 60 percent 45 percent (17) 45 percent (17)
Minimum Setbacks for Primary Structures(4)(5)(7)(8)(9)(10)
Front Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
11/13/12
12
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 18 feet measured along the driveway from:
and Carports (6) 1. The property line fronting the street or the back of the sidewalk, whichever is
closest to the face of the garage or carport; or
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 [; the setback is 3 feet when the garage or carport fronts and
alley].
Alley Access – Garage For new alleys – the setback is 5 feet measured 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.
Base Solar Standards Section 3.2-225.(11)
Maximum Building
Height
(11)(12)(13)(14)(18) 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Commentary: In the SLR District:
1) There is a need for additional lot/parcel coverage due to the proposed smaller minimum lot/parcel
size.
2) There is a conflict between solar protection and increased density, a City-wide issue that needs
resolution outside of the scope of this project. However, most dwellings in the proposed SLR District will
be two or three story, due to the reduced lot/parcel size. At this time, the only solar protection proposed
for the SLR District is for LDR properties to the north because of the 35 foot height limitation which is 5
11/13/12
13
feet higher than permitted in the LDR District. The proposed solar protection regulation is currently found
in the cluster development standards (Section 3.2-230E.3.).
(1) 6,000 square feet in area for one a duplex corner lot/parcel in all [the LDR D] residential districts. [This standard prohibits the
division of the lot/parcel to create separate ownership for each duplex dwelling unit]. This standard may only be increased as
specified in (2), below.
(2) 10,000 square feet in the LDR District as specified in this Section and Section 4.7-140.
9,000 square feet in area for one a duplex corner lot/parcel In the SLR, MDR and HDR District as specified in this Section and Section
4.7-140. [This standard allows for the future division of the lot/parcel] These maximum areas shall apply only when the property
owner intends divide the lot/parcel with the intent to create separate ownership for each half of the duplex.
(3) The 45 percent coverage standard applies to covered structures only. On lots/parcels with more than 15 percent slope or above an
elevation of 670 feet, the maximum impervious surface inclusive of structures, patios, and driveways, shall not exceed 35 percent, unless specified in Section 3.3-500. In the SLR, MDR or HDR Districts, a lot/parcel of 3.000 or less than 4500 square feet shall have a
maximum impervious surface coverage of 60 percent.
(4) Determination of all yard setbacks for duplexes on corner lots/parcels are based upon the front yard of each unit as established by
the streets used for address purposes.
(5) All setbacks shall be landscaped, unless a setback is for a garage or carport.
(6) Accessory Structure Exceptions to Setback standards:
(a) Stand alone garages and carports shall meet the street side yard, interior side yard and rear yard setback standards of the
primary structure.
(b) Group C Accessory structures are permitted within setbacks as specified in Section 4.7-105E.
(7) Where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above grade structure, except a fence, may be built
upon or over that easement.
(8) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro Plan (including the TransPlan), or the
City’s Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the
issuance of any building permit that increases parking requirements.
(9) Architectural extensions may protrude into any 5-foot or larger setback area by not more than 2 feet.
(10) General Exceptions to Setback standards:
(a) Attached dwellings (zero lot line) on individual lots/parcels; and
(b) A dwelling constructed over the common property line of 2 lots/parcels, where there is a recorded deed restriction.
(c) In multifamily developments, the setback standards in Section 3.2-240 shall take precedence.
(11) See Section 3.2-225 for residential building height limitations for solar protection. In the SLR District, solar protection for abutting
LDR properties is required only for those lots/parcels north of the proposed development. (12) Incidental equipment may exceed the height standards.
(13) Height limitations within the Hillside Development Overlay District may be removed provided the additional height does not exceed
45 feet and the base residential solar standards are met.
(14) In the MDR and HDR Districts, the building height may be increased to 50 feet as specified in Subsection 3.2-240D.3.c.
(15) In the MDR and HDR Districts, lot area and dimensions may be reduced through the Subdivision application process as long as
density and open space standards can be met.
(16) Panhandle driveways are permitted where dedication of public right-of-way is impractical. Panhandle driveways shall not be
permitted in lieu of a public street. In order to comply with the density requirements in the applicable residential zoning district. a
private easement as specified in Section 3.2-220B. may be permitted in lieu of the handle because the minimum lot/parcel size is
determined based only on the pan square footage calculation.
(17) In the MDR and HDR Districts, lot coverage standards may be increased to comply with the density requirements in the applicable
residential zoning district.
(18) Special building height standards may be established in Nodal Development Overlay or other special district standards (e.g. Glenwood Plan District), as determined through Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan processes and/or the permitted building
height may be regulated by number of stories‘ or floors. .
3.2-605 Establishment of Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
The following mixed use zoning districts are established to implement areas designated Mixed Use by
the Metro Plan, on adopted refinement plans, specific area plans and specific development plan
diagrams and along transportation corridors designated for commercial development:
Commentary: This is a housekeeping amendment to make the siting of and access to Mixed-Use zones
more specific.
11/13/12
14
A. Mixed-Use Commercial District (MUC). The MUC District is established where a mix of
commercial with residential uses is compatible with existing nearby uses. Development within
the MUC District shall have a commercial dominance, with residential and public uses also
allowed. The primary development objectives of the MUC District are to expand housing
opportunities; allow businesses to locate in a variety of settings; provide options for living,
working, and shopping environments; facilitate more intensive use of land while minimizing
potentially adverse impacts; and to provide options for pedestrian-oriented lifestyles.
[Lots/parcels] Development areas one acre or more in size in the MUC District shall [generally]
have frontage on either an arterial or collector street. Access to any MUC development area
may be from a local street, if there is no negative impact on adjacent residential uses.
B. Mixed-Use Employment District (MUE). The MUE District is established where a mix of light-
medium industrial or special light industrial uses with commercial or medium-high density
residential uses is intended. Development within the MUE District shall have an employment
(industrial) emphasis, but may include commercial, public, and multifamily residential uses. The
primary development objectives of the MUE District are to expand employment opportunities
by allowing businesses to locate in a variety of locations, provide services for employees in close
proximity to their work place, to provide options for living, working, and shopping
environments; facilitate more intensive use of land while minimizing potentially adverse
impacts; and to provide options for pedestrian-oriented lifestyles. [Lots/parcels] Development
areas one acre or more in size in the MUE District shall [generally] have frontage on either an
arterial or collector street. Access to any MUE development area may be from a local street, if
there is no negative impact on adjacent residential uses.
C. Mixed-Use Residential District (MUR). The MUR District is established where a mix of medium
and high density residential with commercial uses is intended. The MUR District shall only be
applied to properties that are contiguous with property designated Community Commercial,
Mixed-Use Employment or Mixed-Use Commercial on the Springfield Zoning Map. Development
within the MUR District shall have a multifamily residential emphasis, but may include small-
scale retail, office and service uses when they are developed as part of a mixed-use
development in order to increase housing opportunities in close proximity to designated
commercial zones; support the retail, office and service uses of the adjacent commercial zone;
and to provide options for pedestrian-oriented lifestyles. [Lots/parcels] Development areas one
acre or more in size in the MUR District shall [generally] have frontage on either an arterial or
collector street. Access to any MUR development area may be from a local street, if a Traffic
Impact Study determines there is no negative impact on adjacent residential uses.
Commentary: Additional Mixed-Use zones as part of the recently approved Glenwood Refinement Plan
Update project are referenced for SDC user convenience.
D. The Residential Mixed-Use (RMU), Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU) and Employment Mixed-Use
(EMU) Districts are applicable to certain portions of the Glenwood Riverfront as specified in the
Glenwood Refinement Plan. See Section 3.4-245 for a description of these districts and Section
3.4-250 for the schedule of permitted uses.
11/13/12
15
Commentary: The following proposed SDC amendment adds clarity to the existing land division
standards that require Future Development Plans. Applicable text is found below in the Urbanizable
Fringe Overlay District (Section 3.3-825) and the Land Division standards (Sections 5.12-120/130).
Commentary: The Section 4.7-100 Title Page is revised.
4.7-105 Accessory Structures
4.7-110 Animal Overnight Accommodations
4.7-115 Auto, Manufactured Dwelling, RV, Boat, Motorcycle and Truck Sales, Service and Rentals
4.7-120 Bed and Breakfast Facilities
4.7-125 Child Care Facilities
4.7-130 Churches
4.7-135 Condominiums
4.7-140 Siting Duplexes in All Residential Districts
4.7-142 Design Standards for Duplexes and Attached Single-Family Dwellings
4.7-145 Eating and Drinking Establishments
4.7-150 Garden Supply and Feed Stores
4.7-155 Group Care Facilities
4.7-160 High Impact Public Facilities
4.7-165 Home Occupations
4.7-170 Manufactured Dwelling as a Permanent Office
4.7-175 Manufacturing as a Secondary Use in Commercial Districts
4.7-180 Mixed Use Districts
4.7-185 Night Watchman’s Quarters
4.7-190 Professional Offices
4.7-195 Public/Private Elementary/ Middle Schools
4.7-200 Public and Private Parks
4.7-203 Public Land and Open Space
4.7-205 Recreational Facilities
4.7-210 Residential Uses in Commercial Districts
4.7-215 Rooming and Boarding Houses
4.7-220 RV Park Standards
4.7-225 RVs as a Residential Use in Manufactured Dwelling Parks in Glenwood
4.7-230 Secondary Retail Sales in the GO District
4.7-233 Small Lot Residential District Development Standards
4.7-235 Small Scale Repair and Maintenance Services
4.7-240 Transportation Facilities—Bus Terminals, Heliports and Helistops
4.7-245 Warehouse Commercial Retail and Wholesale
4.7-250 Wellness Centers in the PLO District
4.7-140 Siting Duplexes in All Residential Districts
Commentary: The proposed text specifically states that duplexes are permitted outright on corner
lots/parcels in all residential districts (see Subsections A. and C.).
A. New Duplexes in the LDR and SLR Districts. A single duplex [es] may be located on corner
lots/parcels [of 6,000 square feet in LDR District, unless as may be permitted below] as specified
11/13/12
16
in Section 3.2-215. The design standards specified in Section 4.7-142 shall only apply to duplexes
in the SLR District.
B. Pre-existing Duplexes in the LDR District. Prior to the adoption of this Code:
1. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels [zoned Low Density Residential,] approved [prior to the
adoption of this Code,] as part of a Planned Unit Development shall not be considered
to be non-conforming uses.
D2. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels [zoned Low Density Residential,] approved [prior to the
adoption of this Code] on property previously zoned RG Garden Apartments shall not be
considered to be a non-conforming use.
E3. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels [zoned Low Density Residential,] that meet[s] the
density requirements of this zoning district, shall not be considered a non-conforming
use.
C.D. New Duplexes in the MDR and HDR Districts.
Commentary: The intent is to require duplex developments to comply with minimal design standards in
all instances in the MDR and HDR Districts, in most cases, as part of the Site Plan Review process.
However, when duplex only developments are proposed on lots/parcels ½ acre or more in size, the multi-
family design standards will also apply.
1. A single duplex shall be permitted on corner lots/parcels as specified in Section 3.2-210.
The design standards of Section 4.7-142 shall apply to this category of duplexes.
2. Where more than one duplex is proposed on lots/parcels that are less than 1/2 acre in
size and the minimum MDR or HDR density standard for the entire development area
can be met, the design standards specified in Section 4.7-142 shall apply to this category
of duplexes.
3. Where more than one duplex is proposed on lots/parcels that are 1/2 acre or more and
the minimum MDR or HDR density standard for the entire development area can be
met, the multi-family design standards specified in Section 3.2-240 shall apply to this
category of duplexes.
D. Partitioning Corner Duplex Lots. A proposed or existing [corner] duplex [or] on a corner
lot/parcel in any residential district may be partitioned for the purpose of allowing independent
ownership of each dwelling unit, [if each of] providing the [resulting] 2 platted [lots/]parcels
meet[s] the [size] minimum area standards for corner duplex parcels specified in Section 3.2-
215. In this case, [Duplexes or duplex lots/parcels eligible for this type of partition shall meet the
partition] the partition shall meet the land division standards [of] specified in Section 5.12-100
and the following:
11/13/12
17
1. Utility service to each unit shall be separate.
2. All walls connecting abutting units shall be fire resistive walls as specified in the
[Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety] Oregon Residential Specialty Code.
3. The property line separating the 2 units shall have not more than 2 angle points. The
angle points shall not occur within the wall between abutting units.
4.7-142 Design Standards for Duplexes and Attached Single-Family Dwellings
Commentary: The Type I review process will require only a planning staff review during the building
permit process utilizing a check list to determine compliance with the proposed duplex and attached
single-family design standards. The individual lots/parcels to be developed will be established by the land
division process as specified in SDC 5.12-100, which requires a Type II staff review process. All other
applicable SDC standards, e.g., landscaping, parking, etc. will be reviewed by staff under the Type I
review process. This will help reduce development costs.
A. The following design standards are required for all duplexes in the SLR, MDR and HDR Districts
and for all attached single-family dwellings in any residential district. The design standards shall
be reviewed under Type I procedure.
Commentary: There are numerous house plans currently on the market that contain a number of the
items on the proposed list. It should be relatively easy for a developer to find a set of plans that contain
at least 6 of these items. This should also help reduce development costs. When Springfield adopted the
multi-family design standards in 2000 (Ord. 6965), implementation cost was a discussion issue at that
time. Springfield’s project consultant determined that design standards similar to those proposed below
would not substantially increase development costs. The City Council on June 19, 2000, voted
unanimously to approve the multi-family design standards.
B. In addition to all other applicable SDC development standards, each duplex and each attached
single-family dwelling shall provide design elements to preclude large expanses of uninterrupted
building surfaces along all elevations which are visible from the street adjacent to the property
(i.e., front, rear and sides). The design shall be provided by using at least 6 of the following
architectural features on all applicable elevations, as appropriate for the proposed building type
and style:
1. Dormers;
2. Gables;
3. Recessed entries;
4. Covered front porches
5. Pillars or posts;
6. Eaves (minimum 12 inch projection);
11/13/12
18
7. Window trim (minimum 3 1/2 inches wide);
8. Bay windows;
9. Balconies;
10. Offsets in the building face by a minimum of 18 inches;
11. Offsets or breaks in roof elevation of 2 feet or greater in height.
12. Decorative patterns on the exterior finish using: shingles; wainscoting; and/or board and
batten.
13. Variation in façade building materials, including, but not limited to: tile; brick; and wood.
Commentary: A specific reference is made to the “Springfield Historic Inventory” and “Developable” is
changed to “net” acre.
4.7-155 Group Care Facilities
Residential facilities with more than 15 people, Foster Homes for over 5 children, Shelter Homes for
battered and abused persons and Halfway Houses.
A. These facilities shall have a front yard setback of 15 feet and side and rear yard setbacks of 20
feet. The landscaped setbacks for parking lots and driveways may be reduced to 5 feet when the
Director determines that adequate buffering has been provided.
B. A minimum of 25 percent of the lot/parcel shall be landscaped.
C. No parking shall be permitted within the front yard setback. Required parking shall be screened
from Public view.
D. For structures on the Springfield Historic Inventory, any external modification shall be [fully
compatible with the original design] as specified in Section 3.3-900.
E. The maximum density in the Low Density Residential District is 24 bedrooms per [developable]
net acre.
Commentary: The intent is to encourage a mix of housing types and apply design Standards in the SLR
District.
11/13/12
19
4.7-233 Small Lot Residential District Development Standards
The following standards are intended to promote a variety of housing types within a SLR development
proposal:
A. Two housing types shall be required for developments of less than 5 acres in size, whether
phased or not.
B. Three or more housing types shall be required for developments of 5 or more acres in size,
whether phased or not.
C. The following list of housing types may be used to satisfy this requirement as long as the density
standards specified in Section 3.2-205 are met:
1. Single-family detached dwellings;
2. Cottage cluster dwellings;
3. Zero lot line dwellings;
4 Single-family attached dwellings; and/or
5. Duplex dwellings, as specified in Sections 3.2-215 and 4.7-140.
Commentary: The Type I review for duplex and attached single-family dwelling design standards is
added to Table 5.4-1.
Table 5.4-1 Development Applications
Type of Application Decision Type Applicable SDC Sections
Accessory Dwelling Unit Type I 5.5-100
Amendment of Development Code Text Type IV 5.6-100
Amendment of Refinement Plan Text or Diagram Type IV 5.6-100
Annexation Type IV 5.7-100
Appeal of a Type II Director’s Decision Type III 5.3-100
Appeal of Type III Decision to City Council Type IV 5.3-100
Appeal of an Expedited Land Division Type III 5.3-125
Conceptual Development Plan Type III Applicable Section
Conceptual Development Plan Amendment Type III Applicable Section
Demolition of Historic Landmark Type III 3.3-900
Determination of Non-Conforming Use Status Type I 5.8-100
Development Issues Meeting Type I 5.1-100
Discretionary Use Type III 5.9-100
Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Development Type I 3.3-200
Duplex and Attached Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards Type I 4.7-142
Establishment of Historic Landmark Inventory Type III 3.3-900
Expansion/Modification of a Non-Conforming Use Type II 5.8-100
Expedited Land Division Type II 5.1-145
11/13/12
20
Extraterritorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service Type IV 3.3-825
Final Site Plan Equivalent Type I 5.17-100
Final Site Plan Review/Development Agreement Type I 5.17-100
Floodplain Development Type I 3.3-400
Hillside Development Overlay District Type II 3.3-500
Historical Commission Review—Major Alteration Type II 3.3-900
Historical Commission Review—Minor Alterations Type I 3.3-900
Home Occupations Type I 4.7-165
HS Hospital Support Overlay District Type II 3.3-1100
Interpretation involving policy Type IV 5.11-100
Interpretation not involving policy Type II 5.11-100
Land Use and Zoning Compatibility Statement Type I 3.1-100
Major Variance Type III 5.21-100
Emergency Medical Hardship Type II 5.10-100
Manufactured Dwelling Park Type II 3.2-235
Manufactured Dwelling Park Space Line Adjustment Type I 3.2-235
Manufactured Home—Temporary Residential Use Type I 3.2-235
Master Plan Type II 5.13-100
Master Plan Amendment Type I or II 5.13-100
Metro Plan Amendment Type I (text) or Type II (diagram) Type IV 5.14-100
Minimum Development Standards Type I 5.15-100
Minor Variance Type II 5.21-100
Partition Replat Tentative Plan Type II 5.12-100
Partition Tentative Plan Type II 5.12-100
Pre-Application Report Type I 5.1-100
Property Line Adjustment—Single Type I 5.16-100
Property Line Adjustment—Serial Type II 5.16-100
Site Plan Modification—Minor Type I 5.17-100
Site Plan Review Modification—Major Type II 5.17-100
Site Plan Review Type II 5.17-100
Solar Access Protection Type II 5.18-100
Subdivision Replat Tentative Plan Type II 5.12-100
Subdivision Tentative Plan Type II 5.12-100
Subdivision/Replat Plat Type I 5.12-100
Tree Felling Permit Type II 5.19-100
Vacation of Plats, Public Right-of-way, or Other Public
Property
Type IV 5.20-100
Vacation of Public Easements Type II 5.20-100
Willamette Greenway Overlay District Development Type III 3.3-300
Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities Type I, II, or III 4.3-145
Zoning Map Amendment Type III 5.22-100
5.12-120 Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements
A Tentative Plan application shall contain the elements necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of
this Code are being fulfilled.
11/13/12
21
Commentary: The proposed SDC amendment makes the existing land division standards that require
Future Development Plans more specific. This Subsection applies to both Partitions and Subdivisions. The
proposed amendment defines a “large” lot/parcel as “more than twice the minimum lot/parcel size” and
specifies that one intent of the Future Development Plan is to achieve minimum residential densities
specified in the SDC (see also the discussion under Section 3.8-825).
E. A Future Development Plan. Where phasing and/or [large] lots/parcels that are more than twice
the minimum lot/parcel size are proposed, the Tentative Plan shall include a Future
Development Plan that:
1. Indicates the proposed redivision, including the boundaries, lot/parcel dimensions and
sequencing of each proposed redivision in any residential district; [any lot/parcel that is
large enough to further divide;] and [or] shall include a plot plan showing building foot
prints for compliance with at the minimum [urban density MDR and HDR] residential
densities specified in Section 3.2-205.
2. Addresses street connectivity between the various phases of the proposed development
based upon compliance with TransPlan, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),
applicable Refinement Plans, Plan Districts, Master Plans, Conceptual Development
Plans, or the Conceptual Local Street Map and this Code;
3. Accommodates other required public improvements, including but not limited to,
sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water and electricity;
4. Addresses physical features, including but not limited to, significant clusters of trees and
shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their
associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and historic features; and
5. Discusses the timing and financial provisions relating to phasing.
5.12-130 Tentative Plan Conditions
To the extent necessary to satisfy the approval criteria of Section 5.12-125, comply with all applicable
provisions of this Code and to mitigate identified negative impacts to surrounding properties, the
Director shall impose approval conditions. All conditions shall be satisfied prior to Plat approval.
Approval conditions may include, but are not limited to:
Commentary: The proposed SDC amendment adds a land division condition of approval to require a
Future Development Plan.
R. When required as specified in Section 5.12-120E., the Final Future Development Plan shall be
recorded at Lane County at the applicant’s expense. The applicant shall then deliver a
reproducible copy of the recorded Future Development Plan to the Director.
6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms
11/13/12
22
Commentary: Below are new, revised and/or relocated definitions related to the proposed SDC
amendments. The intent is to allow for increased housing options. SDC definitions that are stand alone,
such as “Accessory Dwelling Unit” as well as those under topics such as “Manufactured Dwelling” and
“Prefabricated Dwelling” are proposed to be combined under the topic “Dwelling”.
Commentary: The term “developable” acre is being deleted because as stated above, the term “net”
acre will be utilized. The term “net” acre is already defined in SDC Chapter 6.
[Developable Acre. 43,560 square feet of land that can be developed that includes common open space
or recreational facilities reserved for the use of residents in a development, but excludes public
property, including but not limited to, parks and dedicated streets. At the request of the developer, the
Director may exclude portions of the site that cannot be developed due to physical constraints,
including, but not limited to natural resources that are listed within a local inventory.]
Commentary: The current “condominium” definition is proposed to be amended as follows and will
stand on its own because it is an ownership type and not a building type:
[Dwelling, Condominium. A type of residential development offering individual ownership of dwellings
and common ownership of open spaces and other facilities, that is regulated in part by State Law (ORS
100.005 et seq.).]
Condominium. A form of ownership that is regulated in part by ORS 100.005 et seq. that may be
applied to any dwelling type. Existing and new dwellings may be converted to condominium ownership;
however, new dwellings shall comply with the development standards specified in this Code for the
particular type of dwelling.
Commentary: The “dwelling” definition is revised consistent with the Oregon Residential Specialty Code.
[Dwelling. A building, or portion thereof, which is used exclusively for human habitation.]
Dwelling. A building or portion thereof, containing one or more dwelling units, intended or designed to
be built, used, rented, leased, let, or hired out to be occupied or that are occupied for living purposes.
This definition includes buildings constructed on-site and manufactured dwellings.
Commentary: The current “attached single-family dwelling” definition is proposed to be amended as
follows:
[Dwelling, Attached Single-family. A building designed or used exclusively for the occupancy of 1 family
which is attached to one or more separately owned dwellings by common vertical walls. This definition
includes but is not limited to zero lot/parcel line dwellings, townhouses and rowhouses.]
Dwelling, Attached Single-Family. A dwelling, located on its own lot/parcel that shares one or more
common walls with one or more dwellings. The common walls may be any wall of the buildings,
including the walls of attached garages. An attached dwelling does not share common floor/ceilings with
other dwelling units. Attached single-family dwellings include townhouses or rowhouses.
11/13/12
23
Attached Single-Family
Attached Single-Family Dwellings – Townhouses/Rowhouses
Commentary: “Cottage Cluster” is a new definition. The intent is to provide a mechanism to allow a
number of small detached single-family dwellings (cottages) on a single lot/parcel or on individual small
lots/parcels. The difference between a cottage cluster and a cluster subdivision is land ownership. The
cottage cluster is one lot/parcel owned by the residents; a cluster subdivision allows ownership of
individual lots, with common open space. Note: No development standards are proposed as part of
these Phase 1 Land Efficiency Measures; the development standards will be part of Phase 2.
Dwelling, Cottage Cluster. A development of detached single-family housing in a cluster of dwelling
units around a central open space that has the following characteristics: each unit has the construction
characteristics of a single-family house; units are on individual lots and/or in condominium ownership
and may share use of common facilities such as a party room, tool shed, garden orchard, workshop or
parking areas; the site is designed with a coherent concept in mind, including, but not limited to: shared
functional open space, off street parking, access within the site and from the site, and consistent
landscaping.
Cottage Cluster: multiple detached dwellings on one lot
11/13/12
24
Commentary: The current “detached single-family dwelling” definition is proposed to be amended as
follows:
[Dwelling, Detached Single-family. A building designed or used exclusively for the occupancy of 1 family
which is not attached to any other dwelling and is surrounded by open space and yards.]
Dwelling, Detached Single-Family. A single-family dwelling on its own lot/parcel that does not share a
wall with any other dwelling. This dwelling may be either site built or a manufactured dwelling.
Detached Single-family Dwelling
Commentary: The current “duplex” definition is proposed to be amended as follows:
[Dwelling, Duplex. A single building designed or used exclusively for the occupancy of 2 families living
independently of each other, sharing a common roof, wall or foundation at the garages, carports, and/or
living areas.]
Dwelling, Duplex. A building on its own lot/parcel that contains two independent dwelling units
attached by a common wall. The common wall may be any wall of the building, including the wall of
attached garages. A duplex is not considered to be a multi-family dwelling unit.
11/13/12
25
Duplex Dwelling
Commentary: The “manufactured dwelling’ definition is the current definition found in the SDC. No
amendment is proposed; the definition has been relocated to this place.
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;
b. Siding and roofing materials similar to the materials used in residential dwellings in the
community or which are comparable to the predominant materials used on surrounding
dwellings;
c. Minimum roof pitch of 3 feet vertical in 12 feet of width;
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.
11/13/12
26
2. Type 2 Manufactured Home:
a. Single-wide unit of not less than 12 feet wide enclosing a minimum floor area of 500 square
feet;
b. Siding and roofing materials similar to the materials used in residential dwellings in the
community or which are comparable to the predominant materials used on surrounding
dwellings minimum roof pitch of 2 feet vertical in 12 feet of width;
c. 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.
Note: Multi-sectional units placed on lots/parcels eligible for Type 2 units shall comply with all of the
standards of a Type I manufactured home.
Commentary: The current “multi-family dwelling” definition is proposed to be amended as follows:
[Dwelling, Multi-family. A building containing 3 or more dwelling units designed or used exclusively for
the occupancy of 3 or more families living independently of each other and separated by common
vertical walls. A Congregate Care Facility is not a Multifamily dwelling unit for the purposes of
determining dwelling unit density.]
Dwelling, Multi-Family. A building that contains 3 or more dwelling units that share common walls,
floors/ceilings or foundations. The land underneath the building is not divided into separate lots/parcels.
Multi-family dwelling includes, but is not limited to garden apartments, apartments, housing co-ops, loft
conversions, and single room occupancies A congregate care facility is not a multi-family dwelling unit
for the purposes of determining dwelling unit density.
Multi-family Dwelling 3 or more dwellings; one building, one lot/parcel
Commentary: The “prefabricated dwelling” definition is the current definition found in the SDC. No
amendment is proposed, the definition has only been relocated to this place.
11/13/12
27
Dwelling, Prefabricated. A building or structural unit that has been in whole or substantial part
manufactured at an off-site location to be wholly or partially assembled on-site, but does not include a
mobile home, trailer or recreational vehicle. Prefabricated structures are regulated under the State of
Oregon Structural Specialty Code and OAR 918-674.
Commentary: “Single Room Occupancy” is a proposed new definition for a term that describes an
existing situation, for example, the units above Jim’s Landing. This is not new policy; it is only new
terminology.
Dwelling, Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A building that provides living units that have separate
sleeping areas and some combination of shared bath or toilet facilities. The building may or may not
have separate or shared cooking facilities for the residents. For the purposes of determining residential
density, 4 SRO rooms equal one dwelling, Fractional dwellings will be rounded to the next higher
number, e.g., 5 SRO rooms equal 2 dwellings. SROs include, but are not limited to residential hotels and
rooming houses.
Commentary: The term “tri-plex” is a proposed new definition for a term that describes an existing
situation.
Dwelling, Tri-Plex. A building that contains 3 dwelling units that share common walls or floors/ceilings.
The land underneath the building is not divided into separate lots/parcels. A tri—plex is considered to
be a multi-family dwelling.
Commentary: The “dwelling unit” definition is revised consistent with the Oregon Residential Specialty
Code.
[Dwelling Unit. One or more habitable rooms which are occupied, intended or designed to be occupied
by 1 family with housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating.]
Dwelling Unit. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons,
including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating cooking and sanitation.
Commentary: The term “accessory dwelling unit” the current definition found in the SDC. No
amendment is proposed, the definition has only been relocated to this place.
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
appearance to the primary detached single-family dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit is not required to
have its own exterior 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: “Zero-lot-line” is a proposed new definition based upon Portland’s definition.
11/13/12
28
Dwelling, Zero-Lot-Line. A single-family dwelling development on a common street frontage where
each dwelling is shifted to one side of the lot/parcel to provide for greater useable yard space. The
development requires that the planning for all of the dwelling locations be done at the same time,
typically through the land division process, where open space/maintenance easements will be required.
Each dwelling is on one lot/parcel.
Zero Lot Line Dwellings
The development area is 72,000 square feet or 1.65 net acres. Net acres is defined as: “The number of
dwelling units for each acre of land in residential use, excluding, dedicated streets, parks, sidewalks and
other public facilities.” There are 24 dwelling units in the development area that meets the 14 dwelling
units per net acre high end of the SLR density range.
This example shows:
Two housing types – attached single-family and duplexes; and
Two parking scenarios – individual parking spaces with access from the alley, and driveways with
access from the street.
CLUSTER COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLE
Cottage Cluster Development Example. Some cities in Washington and Oregon have adopted Cottage
Housing Development code provisions to allow the development of several small, detached cottages on
a site that would normally be developed with fewer large homes. Cottage Housing Development codes
are not multi-dwelling or overlay zones but instead provide another form of single-family development.
In the City of Bainbridge, cottage housing is allowed conditionally in all single-family zones as detached
dwellings as opposed to condominiums on a common lot. The code requires that cottages be less than
1,000 square feet in living area and limited in height. At 2,500 square feet, lots are allowed to be smaller
than standard single dwelling lots. Parking must be clustered and separated from open spaces rather
than being provided at each individual cottage. Cottages must also be oriented around a landscaped
common area that is central and serves as a gathering space. Developments are limited to a dozen units
so as to maintain a sense of community. With careful attention to the design of units, open spaces and
landscaping, cottage clusters could blend very well into the surrounding neighborhoods of older,
detached homes.
The development standards cited above from Bainbridge, Washington are one way of approaching this
topic. Specific development standards for Cottage Cluster Development will be addressed as part of
Phase 2 Land Use Efficiency Measures. At this time, staff wants to include the concept as a future
development option.
Cottage cluster model code, LMN Architects