HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Development Code Update Project StatusAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/24/2019
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Rust Staff Phone No: 541-726-3654
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Encourage Economic
Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROJECT – STATUS
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Council input or feedback on the Development Code Update Project including the
process so far and project components. Staff will be providing Council an update on the status of the project and presenting the final Housing Code Audit report.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The City Council recognizes that the Development Code is difficult to use, understand, and implement. Resolving the complexities and outdated nature of the
code will help achieve the economic and housing goals for our community. The
Council has directed staff to complete a full Development Code Update.
The purpose of this work session is to provide the City Council with an update on the project status, review the final Housing Code Audit report, and receive input and feedback from the City Council on the project components.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Final Housing Code Audit report
Attachment 2 – Project Purpose hand out
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff last presented to the City Council on this project on 3/18/19, providing a
project status update. The Council reviewed the draft Housing Code Audit report
and received an update on clear and objective standards development. The Project team for the Development Code Update Project has continued to meet with the
Community Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and worked with our consultant
to finalize the Housing Code Audit report.
At this meeting the project manager will discuss the final Housing Code Audit report, the continued process to date, and the progress on moving into Phase 2 of
the project. Phase 2 - the Economic Development phase involves looking at the
development code for Commercial and Industrial lands.
SPRINGFIELD HOUSING
CODE AUDIT
Final Code Audit - May 2019
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 29
Acknowledgements
Community Technical Advisory
Lee Blue
Andrew Boyles
Dennis Covert
Anne DeLaney
Philip Farrington
Charles Harding
Laurie Hauber
Tim Hilton
Gregory James
Kristen Karle
Kris McAlister
James McLaughlin
Richard Satre
Betsy Schultz
This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the
Mark Rust, AICP, Senior Planner
Brenda Jones, Management Support Specialist
Anaïs Mathez, Project Planner,
Elizabeth Decker, Project
Planner, JET Planning
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Code Audit Format and Methodology
Summary Audit Findings
Detailed Code Audit Findings
Proposed Code Update Schedule
1
2
3
4
22
24
25
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 29
INTRODUCTION
a full rewrite process.
Standards include base zone standards, design and development standards, infrastructure
standards, and development review process standards, including project approval criteria. The
Page 1
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 29
Page 2
of standards on project development costs. In some cases, it could be the presence or absence
in less detail.
Given that the City intends to write primarily new development code standards, rather than
TAC.
impressions.
audit authors.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 29
Page 3
1.
corresponding dimensional standards and special
development standards as needed. Development
reviewing a greater variety of projects through non-
2.
, but
standards to remove barriers to development and
have reportedly produced a largely uniform housing
product in recent years.
3.
4.
Generally,
and vehicle access standards should be located in
EDSPM.
paths.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 29
DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS
Page 4
•
8-14 units per acre.
•
only place where density standards are listed; this is an unusual place to locate them.
•
single-family detached dwellings, so those use categories could be combined. Other
use categories that are based on development standards, like ownership or land division
•
HDR zones and prohibited in the LDR and SDR zones. This use category could be broken
in a broader range of zones subject to special design standards calibrated to site design
needs, for the scale of each use.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 29
DUPLEXSINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED
SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED
Page 5
•
housing typically allows for development of a greater density of units, at a smaller scale,
•
•
used in this table for clarity.
The dimensional standards here are not as clear
•
goals against simplicity of a single lot size standard.
•
•
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 29
state the 50-foot height limit rather than referencing a footnote.
•
•
size compared to single-family detached development.
site and may be a barrier to development. Applicability of standards to base zones could be clearer.
for smaller scale development (height, building footprint, etc). The cluster subdivision standards
developed on a single, shared lot.
•
scale and compact form of such dwellings.
•
•Develop minimum lot sizes, dimensions, setbacks and height scaled to smaller dwellings
•
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 29
possible through the cluster subdivision ordinance
setback for two-story buildings that would not apply to
the base zone standards, allowed up to 30 feet tall with
•
reasonably clear and achievable; notably, they do
housing standards, if desired.
•
during the review process. Consider developing
•
reduce barriers to development.
•Integrate standards for manufactured homes currently
a minimum size of 1,000 SF for manufactured homes
homes.
•Review standards for manufactured home parks
for compliance with state building code standards.
Consider simplifying the city standards to address
only issues outside of the state building code, to
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 29
Page 8
new manufactured home parks (land values and development economics disfavor new parks),
nonconformity concerns.
are noted below.
•
which can create barriers to development of smaller projects under 20 units or so. Evaluate
and projected development trends, and developing design standards scaled to each category.
•
removed.
•
clearly. Matching the front setback to adjacent development can reduce buildable area,
•
resource areas, appears reasonable, but it is not easy to calculate whether the common and
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 29
Page 9
•
•
the goal is likely addressed through separate stormwater standards and may not be needed
here.
•
•
and does not appear to include a standard for taller buildings.
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 29
Page 10
track or the other.
only for unusual site features not of the applicant’s own making, could be reviewed and revised to
for adjustments and variances, with a lower bar for adjustments than variances.
one single-family dwelling as a secondary use in the NC and CC zones.
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 29
Page 11
•
zone, or clarifying the reference to the HDR or MDR standards.
•
•
•
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 29
Page 12
•
•
•The allowed density in the MUR district of 12-20 units per gross acre minimum with no
325, which are directly derived from the state’s Goal 15 language, primarily apply to water-dependent
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 29
Page 13
3.3-520 to determine allowable lot sizes and density, an allowable minimum based on average slopes
development.
Update project.
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 29
Page 14
The central challenge is to determine that balance between the infrastructure improvement standards
that should be located in this chapter of the development code, and those that should be located in the
engineering standards (EDSPM). While a complete audit of infrastructure standards is outside the scope of
EDSPM.
by either the City or project opponents. This has emerged as a statewide issue and merits further
Processes to modify infrastructure standards in the SDC and EDSPM should be clear and aligned
with process to modify other land use standards. The Public Works Director currently may modify
standards outside of the land use process, to address the more technical aspects of infrastructure
Attachment 1, Page 17 of 29
Page 15
the site be devoted to parking. Consider whether a lower
units.
could be revised for greater consistency with other parking
per bedroom measurement is inconsistent with parking
wide range of parking outcomes. For a smaller project with
one-bedrooms, the standard would reduce parking to only 3
Attachment 1, Page 18 of 29
new use categories created for these projects, is recommended to support feasibility of
these smaller
standards.
Attachment 1, Page 19 of 29
See discussion above with Commercial Districts.
variety of housing types within SLR developments.
percentages of the various housing types used to
Attachment 1, Page 20 of 29
Page 18
ADUs.
single-family detached dwellings in the MDR and HDR zones, regardless of lot size.
commonly applied based on the typically small scale of ADUs.
While these standards do address the applicable review process and are organized with the review
Attachment 1, Page 21 of 29
Page 19
conformity should be addressed through a separate map amendment process prior to land division.
through a more detailed list of applicable standards elsewhere in code and outside of code;
Attachment 1, Page 22 of 29
Page 20
triggering a Type II review.
Attachment 1, Page 23 of 29
Page 21
•
zoning conformity should be addressed through a separate map amendment process prior to
land division.
•
•
improved through a more detailed list of applicable standards elsewhere in code and outside
•
the code.
•
Attachment 1, Page 24 of 29
Page 22
1.
standards provided that there is a clear standard as the base
like an adjustment process or site plan review, rather than
2. Generally, code standards that grant authority to the Director
ideally referencing an established land use process such as an
to the Director and not enough certainty for code users. The
3.
could be improved for greater clarity and ease of use.
and development standards could be integrated into the
standards.
Attachment 1, Page 25 of 29
Page 23
4.
consistently throughout the code.
5.
Attachment 1, Page 26 of 29
ADDITIONAL AUDIT FINDINGS
Page 24
through the development review process. Though beyond the scope of this audit to fully address,
district, which sets fees, and the City, which collects the fees and thus hears much of the
Attachment 1, Page 27 of 29
PROPOSED CODE UPDATE SCHEDULE
March 2020)
December 2020)
Page 25
Updates to the
upon the code
be completed as
part of the overall
Development Code
Attachment 1, Page 28 of 29
Attachment 1, Page 29 of 29
6/24/2019 Page 1 of 2
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROJECT
PURPOSE
The Purpose of the Development Code Update Project is to
change the Springfield Development Code to support
efficient, timely, and clear development review. The
updated Development Code will support Springfield’s
economic development priorities and will honor
Springfield’s home town feel now and in the future.
OBJECTIVES
The Project objectives are to:
1. Enable quick review of development applications.
2. Provide easy to understand code language presented in a clear and user-friendly format.
3. Provide a straight-forward processing path to development decisions.
4. Support/further economic development in all sectors.
5. Protect and enhance the beauty of our city to boost or stabilize property values, encourage
investment, and improve the image of the community.
6. Comply with mandatory regulatory requirements.
7. Implement the City’s adopted policies.
KEY MESSAGES
The City of Springfield is committed to:
o Reducing development barriers to allow for efficient utilization of the available land supply
inside the Urban Growth Boundary.
o Encouraging and facilitating development of more attached and clustered single-family housing
in the low density and medium density residential zones.
o Providing a variety of housing options for all income levels in both existing neighborhoods and
new residential areas.
o Enhancing the quality and affordability of new development within existing neighborhoods and of
multi-family housing.
o Promoting compact, orderly, and efficient urban development.
o Making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective.
o Promoting efficient and economical patterns of mixed land uses and development densities.
o Broadening, improving, and diversifying the Springfield economy.
o Maintaining or enhancing environmental qualities and Springfield’s natural heritage.
There will be multiple ways and opportunities for the Springfield community to receive project information
and provide input on the project.
Project Manager: Mark Rust, Senior Planner – 541-726-3654, email: mrust@springfield-or.gov
Project webpage: http://www.springfield-or.gov/city/development-public-works/springfield-
development-code-update-project/
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
6/24/2019 Page 2 of 2
WE ARE HERE Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2