Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Development Code Update ProjectAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/24/2022 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Rust Staff Phone No: 541-726-3654 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes SPRINGFIELD Council Goals: Encourage Economic CITY COUNCIL Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships ITEM TITLE: DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROJECT — QUARTERLY CHECK IN ACTION At this meeting staff is giving the Council an update on the project status and the REQUESTED: Planning Commission public hearing and deliberations. The Council may take this opportunity to provide feedback to project staff and ask questions. ISSUE STATEMENT: 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 hometown feel now and in the future. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council Briefing Memo Attachment 2: Public Outreach Report Attachment 3: Briefing Memorandum to joint Planning Commissions deliberations 1/18/22 Attachment 4: Development Code Update Project Schedule (3/16/21) DISCUSSION/ Background FINANCIAL Staff last presented to the City Council on this project, jointly with the Planning IMPACT• ' Commission on November 8, 2021. At this meeting staff gave the Council and Planning Commission an update on the progress of both Phase 1, Housing, and Phase 2, Employment Lands of the Development Code Update Project. The update included a report on the community outreach for the project. Discussion The Planning Commission conducted the first public hearing for Phase 1 and 2 of the Development Code Update Project on January 4, 2022. This was a joint public hearing together with the Lane County Planning Commission. The joint planning commissions are scheduled to deliberate on January 18, 2022 (after the issuance of this memo). Staff will report to the City Council on the status of the deliberations and topics for consideration in preparation for the upcoming City Council public hearing process. Next Steps The Planning Commission will be forming a formal recommendation to forward the City Council. After the Planning Commissions deliberations on January 18, 2022 staff will have a better idea of when the formal recommendation may be complete. After the Planning Commission formal recommendation, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed code amendments. This public hearing is tentatively planned for April 2022. Staff will provide the next regularly planned quarterly check in to the Council in April 2022. MEMORANDUM City of Springfield Date: 1/24/2022 To: Nancy Newton, City Manager COUNCIL From: Tom Boyatt, Community Development Director BRIEFING Mark Rust, Interim Planning Supervisor MEMORANDUM Subject: Development Code Update Project—Quarterly Check In ISSUE 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 hometown feel now and in the future. COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships BACKGROUND Staff last presented to the City Council on this project, jointly with the Planning Commission on November 8, 2021. At this meeting staff gave the Council and Planning Commission an update on the progress of both Phase 1, Housing, and Phase 2, Employment Lands of the Development Code Update Project. The update included a report on the community outreach for the project. DISCUSSION Community Engagement — Public Outreach Report At the last work session update on this project staff provided a summary of the responses to the Community Survey that was conducted in conjunction with the Virtual Open House. The survey results have been compiled together will all of the public outreach efforts through the end of 2021 and provided in the Public Outreach Report (Attachment 2). This report highlights the extensive amount of community engagement that has taken place on this project. The community survey results represent input from 80 community members. In pre COVID times if we held an in person open house and 80 people attended to provide feedback this would have been seen as a success and significant involvement. For some additional perspective, if 80 people each testified for 3 minutes at a public hearing that would be four hours of testimony. It is estimated that the survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete, in addition to the time to view the Virtual Open House that provided information on the topics asked about in the survey. This represents a significant time commitment and interest from community members. Phase 1 and 2 Planning Commission public hearings process The Planning Commission held the first public hearing on the proposed code changes for Phase 1 - Housing, and Phase 2 — Employment Lands on January 4, 2022. This was a joint hearing with the Lane County Planning Commission. This was a virtual only meeting using the County's Zoom webinar platform. There were approximately 19 people (members of the public) "attending" the meeting. In addition, there were approximately 43 participants including Planning Commissioners and staff, etc. The meeting went over three and a half hours including a one hour work session followed by the public hearing. We had mailed around 1400 or so notices to certain property owners, published the notice in the Register Guard, emailed notice to the interested parties list, and provided information on the project webpage. At the hearing a total of 8 people testified from the public. Primarily there was support for the proposal. Most the comments focused on housing/middle housing. There were requests for Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3 clarification and advocacy for allowing more density, less parking, smaller lot sizes, etc. There were some questions and concerns expressed about the Historic District, protections for historic district character, and tree protections in the historic district. Prior to the public hearing 2 written comments were posted on Springfield Oregon Speaks (the platform we use to manage our Planning Commission meetings). Leading up to the hearing we heard from about 25 people through phone calls or email with mostly requests for clarifying questions. Topics that were discussed by the joint Planning Commissions after the public hearing, and that were topics followed up on at the January 18t' deliberations include: 1. Code sections that apply outside the city limits vs. inside the city limits 2. Lot size standards for middle housing 3. Lot coverage standards/impervious surface standards for residential development 4. Parking 5. Historic District — tree preservation and demolition of structures 6. Scrivener's errors, corrections, and minor edits needed 7. Annexation The attached Briefing Memorandum to the joint Planning Commissions (Attachment 3) for their January 18t' deliberations includes discussion on each of these topics. The joint Planning Commissions closed the public hearing and left the written record open until 10 a.m. January 18, 2022. The joint Planning Commissions reconvened to deliberate at 6:00 p.m. on January 18, 2022. Since the public hearing staff has received four additional public comments that were provided to the joint Planning Commissions for their deliberations. After the Planning Commissions conclude their deliberations, the Planning Commissions will make a formal recommendation to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners, respectively. Then a joint public hearing will be held with the City Council and Board of County Commission for the final decisions. The anticipated time frame for this joint public hearing is in April 2022. Phase 3 The project schedule has Phase 3 of the project beginning in October of 2021. The project schedule needs to be revised to reflect a modified start time to the Phase 3 work. The initial recruitment to back fill the Senior Planner position for the code update project work was unsuccessful. Until staff can be recruited to continue the code update project work on Phase 3 it will be on hold. Initially the Phase 3 work will involve an audit of the remaining sections of code that have not been revised with Phase 1 or 2 and recommend a prioritization for how those additional code section updates could take place. Project Schedule According to the overall project schedule (Attachment 4) staff is on track with Phase 1 and 2. Staff anticipates Phases 1 and 2 are on schedule to be adopted by June 30, 2022. This timeline is critical due to the State mandate to have the middle housing code provisions in place. RECOMMENDED ACTION No formal action is being requested. The Council may take this opportunity to provide feedback to project staff and ask questions. Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3 NEXT STEPS The Planning Commission is schedule to conduct deliberations on January 18, 2022. Staff will provide the next regularly planned quarterly check in to the Council in April 2022. Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3 an ao H ■ ■ WN I DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROJECT Development Code Update Project Public Outreach Report December 2021 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 22 I. Project Introduction The Springfield Development Code is the principal document that implements local, state, and federal land use, transportation, and environmental laws applicable in the City of Springfield. The current Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted in 1987. Other than general "housekeeping" updates that occurred from 1998 to 2005, the Code has been revised only to comply with state or federal laws, or as directed by the Springfield City Council in response to a specific issue or objective. The City Council recognizes that the Springfield 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 which includes both residential and employment land -use development codes. The project timeline is approximately 2018 through 2023. Additionally, the City will update Other land use development codes in Phase III of this project. Additionally, The State of Oregon law requires the local governing authorities such as the City to have clear and objective development standards to support efficient, timely, and clear development reviews for housing. The Oregon Legislature in 2019, passed House Bill 2001 (HB 2001), a law that requires large cities in Oregon to allow "Middle Housing" in areas zoned for residential use. Large cities (defined as cities with a population of over 25,000 people) including Springfield must allow: (1) all middle housing types in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings; and (2) a duplex on each lot or parcel zoned for residential use that allows for the development of detached single-family dwellings. Middle housing, which House Bill 2001 defines as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses, provides an opportunity to increase diverse housing supply in developed neighborhoods that can blend in well with detached single-family dwellings. Middle housing types are residential living units for two or more households but fewer than a typical apartment building. As such, the implementation of House Bill 2001 is expected to bring significant proposed changes to the code sections of the Springfield Development Code a.) State Mandated Timeline The House Bill 2001 was adopted in 2019 by the Oregon Legislature while the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for Middle Housing were adopted in December 2020. Springfield's land -use code amendments need to be finalized by June 30, 2022, if unable to adopt code amendments in time, the state -adopted model code will automatically apply. The project has moved quickly to meet the state -mandated timeline while providing necessary information to the community members and stakeholders as well as, gathering valuable feedback from them. b.) Project Purpose and Objectives The established project purpose and objectives were developed in conjunction with the Springfield City Council and Planning Commission and approved as part of the Community Engagement Plan for the project. 21 P a g E Attachment 2, Page 2 of 22 Public Outreach Report 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 honor Springfield's hometown feel now and in the future. 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 straightforward processing path to development decisions. 4. Support/further economic development in all sectors. S. 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 including implementation of HB 2001. 7. Implement the City's adopted policies. Community Engagement Plan *080 4.0.0 *0_9 I q4? rts Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 requires all projects that involve decisions about land use in Oregon to provide opportunities for meaningful public input on such projects. The Goal calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process". Following the directives of Goal 1 - Community Engagement has been an integral part of the Development Code Update project. The Community Engagement Plan describes the goals, key messages, and the process of community engagement that the City of Springfield implemented to ensure that community members and stakeholders have adequate opportunities to provide meaningful input to the Project. The Plan highlights the expected outcomes and is designed with the public/community members, technical advisory committee, and the decision -makers in mind as the intended audience. Throughout the project, the City is committed to sharing information and gathering valuable input from the community members and the stakeholders. a.) Community Engagement Goals The Community Engagement goals highlight the City's intention to meaningfully engage the community members within the project. The goals are laid out to: 31 Page Attachment 2, Page 3 of 22 Public Outreach Report 1. Ensure the Springfield community has opportunities to be informed about the project 2. Ensure the Springfield community has opportunities to provide input on the project. 3. Ensure the community understands the key issues related to the Development Code. 4. Foster and sustain a collaborative and mutually respectful process while completing the Development Code Update Project. 5. Communicate complete, accurate, understandable, and timely information to the community and partners throughout the Development Code Update Project including an explanation of potential impacts from the proposed changes. 6. Demonstrate how input has influenced the process and is incorporated into the final Development Code update. 7. Adhere to the City of Springfield community engagement guiding principles. b.) Key Messages The community engagement plan emphasizes the use of key messages throughout project communications to help maintain consistent messaging about the project goal and objectives. These messages were conveyed both in written communications and as talking points. The following key messages are treated as a living document within the Community Engagement Plan. The key messages were regularly updated to reflect the feedback and themes received from the stakeholders and the community throughout the various phases of the project. The following key messages reflect the City of Springfield's commitment to: 1. Reduce —the development barriers to allow for efficient utilization of the available land supply inside the Urban Growth Boundary. 2. Encourage and facilitate - the development of more attached and clustered single-family housing in the low density and medium density residential zones. 3. Provide - a variety of housing options for all income levels in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas. 4. Enhance - the quality and affordability of new development within existing neighborhoods and of multi -family housing. 5. Promote- compact, orderly, and efficient urban development. 6. Make - development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective. 7. Promote - efficient and economical patterns of mixed land uses and development densities. 8. Broaden, improve, and diversify - the Springfield economy. 9. Maintain or enhance - environmental qualities and Springfield's natural heritage. c.) Community Engagement Process The Community Engagement Process reflects the role of various advisory groups and committees that contributed their time, knowledge, and expertise to the process. The Technical Advisory Committee and the public shape the foundation of the community engagement process. The process is designed to ensure that the 11ublic Outreach Report Attachment 2, Page 4 of 22 community is engaged, consulted and that the Springfield City Council and committees have the benefit of that community input throughout and at major milestones of the Project. The following graphic highlights the pyramid structure for community involvement and the decision-making process. The structure incorporates the role and purpose of the committees within the Code Update project. It should be noted that each phase of the Code Update project i.e., Phase I - Housing, Phase II - Commercial/Industrial went through a similar community engagement process. In the future, Phase III- will also follow a similar decision-making process. pity Counci ; 1 I I DECJDE I Planning Commission FCOMMUNITY RECOMMEND I INPUT I General Public I INPUT Governance Committee INPUT Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ADVISE III. Stakeholders and Committees Involvement The role of the committees and the involvement of the public through the various stages of the project reflects the dynamic nature of the engagement process and the level of participation that each committee, their members, and the public bring into the engagement process. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Task — Advise The Technical Advisory Committee performed an analysis of the existing code and new code concepts and provided technical information and advice on how changes could be made and why the changes are proposed based on the Project Objectives. The underlying role of the Technical Advisory Committee was to provide the Project Core Team with the support necessary to develop code revisions by: • Establishing a forum to identify, discuss, and resolve technical issues and concerns. • Establishing a forum to maintain interdepartmental and interagency communication. • Providing data and information, as requested. • Reviewing and providing feedback on draft work products in a timely manner. Technical Advisory Committee Membership: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) included members of various interests and expertise from within the community. The Core Project Team actively reached out to potential participants and invited them to the Technical Advisory Committee. There were, however, multiple 51 Page Attachment 2, Page 5 of 22 Public Outreach Report compositions of the Technical Advisory Committee over the life of the project. At the onset of the Code Update Project, a Housing -related Technical Advisory Committee was formed followed by a Technical Advisory Committee focused on Economic Development and Employment land, and finally a Technical Advisory Committee to address many other areas of the Development Code. Part of the Technical Advisory Committee also included City staff, other government agencies staff, and utility provider participants on a topic -specific basis. TAC meetings were open to the public for observation. Members of the TAC represented the following areas: • Housing, • City Staff (on topic -specific expertise) • Utility Department • Government agencies Governance Committee Task — Input The Governance Committee identified key issues and provided directions on areas of focus to the Core Project Team. The Governance Committee was comprised of two City Councilors and two Planning Commissioners. One significant role of the Governance Committee was to provide an additional opportunity to the community to provide input. The governance committee members were tasked to provide updates to their respective bodies (Planning Commission and City Council). General Public Task — Input & Feedback The public was engaged throughout the project via concerted community outreach efforts in the form of a public outreach survey and public comments. The outreach sought input from the community on concepts and draft code language that was developed for both the Project phases i.e., Phase I and Phase 11. The input from the community survey and outreach was later addressed in the Public Hearing draft code that will be presented to the Planning Commission for recommendations and then to the City Council for the final decision. The community members will have the opportunity to present their comments in writing or orally at the Planning Commission during the public hearing process scheduled for Jan 4, 2022. Alternatively, the public can provide input via the Development Code Project webpage. Planning Commission Task - Recommend The Springfield Planning Commission will provide their recommendations to the City Council on the draft code sections for residential and employment land. Throughout the process, the Planning Commission conducted meetings with the City staff to provide recommendations to the draft materials. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing that will be an opportunity for the community members and the stakeholders to provide their input to the draft code sections. This will be followed by the Planning Commission's final recommendations to the City Council. Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI Task —Input & Feedback 61 Attachment 2, Page 6 of 22 Public Outreach Report The Planning Commission was also assigned the role of the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) to oversee and approve the Community Engagement Plan for the Development Code Update project. Springfield City Council Task - Decide The Springfield City Council has oversight and decision-making responsibilities for the Project. The project staff provided briefings to the City Council and solicited feedback and guidance at regular check-in meetings, either quarterly or on an as -needed basis. The City Council will conduct a second public hearing and take into consideration the Planning Commission's recommendations and additional public input to make a final decision on the approval and adoption of the final Springfield Development Codes. IV. Community Engagement Strategies The table below highlights the community engagement strategies used throughout the Development Code Update Project to share information with the public as well as gather their feedback. The strategies specifically include the purpose and goal for the individual engagement tactics. The purpose and goal were particularly useful for the effective implementation and execution of engagement strategies Engagement Strategies PurposeCommunity Engagement Goal Project webpage Provide project information in one location. Inform E -Newsletter article(s) Provide project information on specific topics or Inform issues. E-update(s) Establish an online sign-up mechanism and share Inform periodic project updates. Social Media Campaign Build overall awareness and promote project Inform (ex. Linkedln, Facebook, Twitter, activities and findings. etc.) Factsheet/FA(Xs Provide information about the project and answer Inform common questions. Open House (Online) Introduce the project, present existing conditions in Consult & gather the form of a story map, and gather feedback. feedback Media release Announce timely information Inform Presentations/Events/ Focus Provide project information and receive feedback. Inform & gather Groups feedback Mailings/postcards Provide information, invite to participate, request Inform feedback. One -on -One meetings Provide information and gather feedback. Inform & gather feedback Technical Advisory Committee Provide input and feedback on options to consider Consult, gather meetings for code updates input & feedback Public Outreach Survey (online) To gather information and feedback Gather feedback Analytics Evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach Analysis Debrief meetings After key project milestones Analysis 21 Page Attachment 2, Page 7 of 22 Public Outreach Report a.) Measures of Success Measures of success is a critical assessment tool for community engagement strategies and their outcome which includes both quantitative and qualitative assessment of public participation and feedback. The measures helped determine the effectiveness of community involvement efforts. Measures are based on the established Community Engagement Goals specified in Section II of this report. The City will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the community engagement throughout the lifetime of the Project. The following factors have been determined to assess the engagement efforts concerning the Community Engagement Goals. 1. Number of participants attending meetings or events. 2. Number of responses received to a survey. 3. Number of website views during a specific time period. 4. Number of people who sign up for the project mailing list. 5. Number of people who opened and clicked through on e -updates. 6. Number of project comments received (phone, email, comment cards, online). 7. How project decisions have been modified as a result of public input. 8. Whether the comments received are relevant to the project (project understanding). 9. Whether the Project was executed as planned and if the changes support the goals. 10. Level of acceptance of Project outcomes. 11. Survey participants to assess the level of understanding of process and changes. b.) Covid -19 Pandemic The Code Update Project was initiated in 2018 and the community engagement plan was established pre-Covid- 19 Pandemic. Community outreach for the Project began with in-person TAC and committee meetings but at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic and with the public health guidelines in place that prohibited large, in-person gatherings the project staff transitioned to an online meeting format. This meant that the engagement continued to include mostly virtual opportunities to engage, including virtual Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. Efforts such as online forums, use of social media, mobile -friendly webpage design, virtual open house, and online public survey were some of the new creative tactics that were used for public outreach. Overall, the Development Code Update Project saw effective public participation and established a presence on several new platforms. V. Public Outreach Summary (2018 — 2021) The project's Community Engagement Plan, first approved December 18, 2018, with revision in October 2019 and March 2021, describes activities implemented by the City to assure that interested and affected parties have adequate information and opportunities to provide meaningful input to the Development Code Update Project. The following table is a summary of the public outreach that has been implemented for the Project to date. 31 Page Attachment 2, Page 8 of 22 Public Outreach Report Community Outreach .. Engagement Strategy At- _d Housing - Technical 14 meetings 13 members Participants represented various housing interests. Advisory Meetings held between 1/28/19 - 2/9/21 Committee (TAC) Employment Lands 7 meetings 8 members Participants represented a broad spectrum of interests. -Technical Advisory Meetings held between 4/30/20 - 4/29/21 Committee (TAC) City Staff - 8 meetings 11 members Includes city staff on an as -needed basis with expertise Technical Advisory in different areas depending on the code topic. Committee (TAC) Meetings held between 1/28/19 - 5/7/21 Governance 9 meetings 4 members Members included 2 city councilors & 2 planning Committee commissioners. Meetings held between8/18/18 — 6/15/21 Planning 27 meetings 7 members Commission members representing Springfield Commission residents with various expertise. Meeting held between 8/18/18 — 11/16/21 City Council 15 meetings 6 members City council members representing different wards of the city including the Mayor of the City of Springfield. Meetings held between 9/10/18 — 9/7/21 The following housing developers were interviewed to Housing Provider/ 5 interviews 5 organizations Developer interviewed gather their input Interviews • Home Builders of Lane County • Hayden Homes • Homes for Good • Tim Hovet • Dan Hill (Blossom Cottages) Project webpage Established 11/2018 Provide easily accessible project information in one location. E -updates) 11 e -updates via More than 400 Provide notice of upcoming meetings and online open emails recipients on house, feedback summaries, and other key project the list 2 Factsheets + 1 information. Factsheet/FAA's Created and disseminated general information focused FAQ published on Middle Housing and House Bill 2001. Presentations 10 Presentations Presentations were done for the following conducted organizations: • Springfield City Club (7/21) • Springfield Chamber of Commerce (6/21) • Springfield Board of Realtors (5/21) 41 Page Attachment 2, Page 9 of 22 Public Outreach Report • Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Board (2/21) • Springfield Board of Realtors (8/20) • Commercial Investment Division at Lane County (2/20) • Springfield Chamber of Commerce (2/20) • Better Housing Together meeting presentation (12/19) • Springfield City Club (10/19) • Springfield Chamber of Commerce (3/19) Podcast 2 podcasts • YIMBY podcast on Development Code Update published Project (10/19) • KLCC's Oregon Grapevine: Housing in Springfield (07/21) Media article(s) 3 media articles News and media coverage about the project. • KVAL/KMTR story about HB 2001 (9/19) • Free For All News article (2/19) • Article in the Chamber of Commerce "The Bottom Line" (10/18) Social Media 3 Social media Social Media Posts to the City's Facebook, Instagram, Campaign campaigns on and Twitter pages on 08/21, 07/21, 06/20. Facebook, Instagra m & Twitter Virtual Open House Open House in a Story map format Project introduction and public information about the significance of the project. Aims to connect and gather feedback from the community members. Public Outreach 1 Public Survey 80 people Online Public Outreach Survey for Middle Housing Survey to gather public participated Implementation conducted in July 2021. feedback. Planning 1 Public 6 Planning Online Public Outreach Survey for Middle Housing Commission Outreach Survey Commission Implementation conducted in July 2021. Community Survey members participated Furthermore, Springfield Project Staff have ongoing coordination efforts including with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the city of Eugene, Lane County as well as Lane Transit District (LTD) and Springfield Utility Board (SUB). Additional information regarding the community engagement tactics can be found on the project website. To learn more about the project or leave feedback the public could connect with project staff via email or phone. 51 Page Attachment 2, Page 10 of 22 Public Outreach Report VI. July 2021 Public Survey Outreach Summary The Development Code Update Project launched its outreach survey at the beginning of July 2021 and the public was invited to participate in the survey to provide feedback for the residential draft codes of the Development Code Update Project which specifically included survey questions around Middle Housing. The survey asked public opinion regarding Middle Housing code standards that the City could adopt to comply with the Oregon State Housing Bill 2001 (or HB 2001). The goal of the public outreach survey for the Development Code Update project was to ensure that the members of the Springfield community have the opportunity to engage with the project and provide valuable feedback to it. a.) Structure of the Survey The questions in the survey were based on levels of implementing House Bill 2001 within the City of Springfield. The state has adopted minimum standards in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) that serve as a baseline for complying with the bill. The questions asked community members whether Springfield should do the minimum required to comply with the OAR's, referred to as the "Allow" option, or go beyond the minimum required, referred to as the "Encourage" and "Maximize" options. The survey incorporated eight questions about the following middle housing standards. 1. lot size 2. lot coverage 3. height restrictions, 4. parking requirements, 5. design flexibility and standards The community members had the option to provide comments on each of these questions. The survey had an optional demographic section that asked the community members questions regarding their residency status in Springfield, current living situation, race/ ethnicity, gender identity, and age range. These questions helped the staff understand who was able to engage and provide input to the project and whose opinion wasn't heard in the survey. The optional last section of the survey asked the community members to share any additional input or comment about the project. The public survey was published in both English and Spanish language and there was a total of 80 respondents to the survey. There were no respondents to the Spanish version of the survey, however for the English version 10% of the respondents selected Hispanic/Latino as their race/ethnic identity. b.) Survey Questions Responses to the survey questions are provided below. The narrative survey responses are also included, to the extent that the comments are relevant to the Code Update Project. Comments reflecting concerns that the City is prohibited from considering when regulating housing, such as protected status under the Fair Housing Act, have been redacted to include only the comments relevant to the City Council's decision whether to adopt or not adopt the proposed code updates. 61 Page Attachment 2, Page 11 of 22 Public Outreach Report Question 1: Attached or Detached The first survey question asked the community members about the applicable standards for the new middle housing development in the city. Should the City allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes by only meeting the minimum state standards and require the units to be attached, or should the City maximize more duplex, triplex, and fourplex units by allowing the units to be detached units on a lot to provide more flexibility? Should the City allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes by only meeting the minimum state standards and require the units to be attached, or should the City maximize more duplex, triplex, and fourplex units by allowing the units to be detached units on MAXIMIZE: Allow duplex, triplex, and fourplex 81% units to be detached. ALLOW: Require duplex, triplex, and fourplex 14% units to be attached. Other (Please specify) 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Out of the 80 total respondents who took the survey, 77 answered this question while 3 people chose to skip it. Approximately 80% of the respondents or 62 people want the development codes to maximize the State standards which indicate that the development codes could allow the structures to be detached. 14% of the survey respondents or 11 people want the development codes to allow middle housing or the duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes; to be attached. 4 people (the 5% that choose "other") provided comments on this question with concerns about parking requirements, neighborhood aesthetics, and crowded neighborhood. The following comments were received for question 1 of the survey. 1. "While I like the idea, parking is not being addressed nor is the wear and tear on neighborhood streets." 2. "Minimize crowding on land while allowing some development, 1 bought my home and don't want plexes all around me." 3. "Depends on the style of the neighborhood. In a street of 2 -story houses, tiny, detached units would look out of place. But a townhouse attached plex would match." 4. "Should not allow." Question 2: Minimum Lot Standards The second question asked the respondents about the siting of triplex and fourplex dwellings on a minimum lot size. 71 Page Attachment 2, Page 12 of 22 Public Outreach Report Should the City allow triplex and fourplex dwelling on smaller lot sizes than the 5,000 and 7,000 square foot sizes mandated by the State? Should the City allow triplex and fourplex dwellings on smaller lot sizes than the 5,000 and 7,000 square foot sizes mandated by the State? ALLOW: Require the largest minimum lot size permitted by state law. A triplex would be allowed on at least a 5,000 square foot lot and a fourplex on a 7,000 square foot lot. ENCOURAGE: Allow a smaller minimum lot size from the state standard. This option would allow triplex and fourplex development on lots under the 5,000 and 7,000 square... MAXIMIZE: Don't require any minimum lot size. This would allow a triplex and fourplex on any size lot as long as the other siting standards were met. Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 38% 37% 40% 76 out of 80 respondents answered, while 4 respondents skipped this question. Approximately 38%, or 29 people, agree that the City standards should follow the State standards that will allow a triplex on a 5000 sq. ft. lot size and a fourplex on a 7000 sq. ft. lot size. About 22%, or 28 survey respondents, want the City to maximize minimum lot size requirement, which mean the development codes could allow triplexes and fourplexes on any lot size if other siting standards are met. About 22%, or 17 respondents to the survey chose the Encourage option, which would allow a smaller minimum lot size than the State standard. This option would allow triplex and fourplex to be sited on smaller lot size under 5,000 and 7,000 sq. ft. and set a smaller minimum lot size standard for these types of middle housing. 2 people who chose 'other' as their response commented: 1. "Allow reduction only for detached plexes" 2. "NO NO NO" Question 3: Height Limit Standards The third question in the survey asked the community members about height limit for the middle housing types. 81 Page Attachment 2, Page 13 of 22 Public Outreach Report What height limit should the City require for most middle housing types? What height limit should the City require for most middle housing types? ALLOW: Require the lowest height limit allowed by state law. ENCOURAGE: Allow the height limit to be higher than single family homes. MAXIMIZE: No maximum height limit. The size of the structure would be regulated by other standards. Other (please specify) 0% 0% 28% 36% 36% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 75 people chose to answer while 5 skipped this survey question. Equal number of respondents chose 'Allow' and 'Maximize' as their answer. 27 people (36%) want the city development codes to follow State law that require lowest height limit for the middle housing types, while 27 people (36%) want the development codes to have no maximum height limit for the middle housing. 21 survey respondents (28%) want to development codes to 'Encourage' the middle housing height limit, this would mean that the height limit for duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes could go higher than the single-family homes. There were no public comments received for this survey question. Question 4: Lot Coverage Standards The fourth survey question asked the respondents about lot coverage requirement for the middle housing types. When building new middle housing, how much of the lot should be allowed to be covered? When building new middle housing, how much of the lot should be allowed to be covered? ALLOW: Require the lowest lot coverage allowed by state law, currently 45%. ENCOURAGE: Allow for lots to develop with an increased lot coverage for middle housing types. MAXIMIZE: No maximum lot coverage standard. The lot coverage would be regulated by other... 91 Page Other (please specify) 24% 38% 38% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Public Outreach Report Attachment 2, Page 14 of 22 72 people responded to this question while 8 people chose to skip it. 17 people (23.6%) chose the 'allow' option, which require the lowest lot coverage for the middle housing, same as the State law which is currently 45% of the lot size. 27 survey respondents (37.5%) want the development codes to 'encourage' lot coverage size which mean that middle housing should be allowed to cover more than 45% of the lot size. Similarly, 27 survey respondents (37.5%) want the development codes to 'maximize' lot coverage standard. This option does not require any maximum lot coverage standard, but it would regulate other standards such as the setbacks, parking, and the need for stormwater management. One survey respondent wrote the following comment: 1. "The development codes should only allow increased coverage (more than 45%) if it also requires neighborhood parks/open space within a block or two." Question 5: Parking Standards The fifth question in the outreach survey asked about parking requirements for the new middle housing developments. When building new middle housing, how much space should be dedicated to parking? When building new middle housing, how much space should be dedicated to parking? ALLOW: Require the most parking possible allowed by state law (generally one space per... 57% ENCOURAGE: Require less parking (allow on street 400" 21% parking, and/or less parking near places where it... MAXIMIZE: Require even less parking or no parking. 19% Other (please specify) 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Out of the 72 respondents who chose to answer this question, 41 people (60%), want the development codes to 'allow' the most parking possible for the development as allowed by the State law. The State law requires the cities to require no more than one parking space per dwelling. 15 people (approx. 21%) chose the 'encourage' option which meant the development codes should require less parking than the State law. In this case, the new middle housing development could allow on -street parking and/or less parking near places where it is easier to get around without a car. 14 respondents, about 19 %, chose the 'maximize' option which could require even less parking than the other two option or no parking at all for each individual homes. 2 respondents commented on this question. 1. "Parking spaces per unit" 101 Page Attachment 2, Page 15 of 22 Public Outreach Report 2. "The state rules account for a family with 2 cars to live in a place, the duplexes tend to have 4 or more cars per address so either a limit of cars or required off street parking should be considered." Question 6: Design Standards The sixth question in the survey asked about the level of design standards that the city should adopt for the middle housing developments. What level of design standards should the City use for middle housing? What level of design standards should the City use for middle housing? ALLOW: Use the highest level of design standards allowed by state law. Features may limit design flexibility and may add... 20% ENCOURAGE: Develop design standards that are less 39% restrictive than the "allow' option. This option would... MAXIMIZE: Require few or no design standards. This option would permit a range of design standards and flexibility and... 40% Other (please specify) Ia 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Out of 80 total respondents, 70 chose to answer this question. 14 people (20% of the survey respondents) want the city to adopt highest level of design standards as allowed by the State law. This would limit design flexibility and may add cost to providing housing. 27 respondents (approx. 39%) want the development codes should encourage less restrictive design standards than the 'allow' option. This option would encourage middle housing to use basic design features but at the same time leave room for design flexibility. This option could also potentially reduce the cost for middle housing development. 28 respondents (40%), want the City to 'maximize' the level of design standards. This mean that the development codes could require few or no design standards. This option would permit a range of design standards and flexibility and could result in more efficient and lower cost of housing. One survey respondent commented on this question and wants the development codes to have the provision for incentives to allow 1. "Flexibility, affordability, greater landscaping, etc." Question 7: General Direction The seventh question in the survey asked the community members about the general direction for middle housing development in the Springfield community. 111 Page Attachment 2, Page 16 of 22 Public Outreach Report in general, what direction do you feel is the best for your Springfield community? In general, what direction do you feel is the best for your Springfield community? ALLOW middle housing: Meet the minimum standards required 26% by State law. This option requires more regulations, less... ENCOURAGE more middle housing: Remove code barriers and increase flexibility to providing housing. This option has less... MAXIMIZE the amount of middle housing allowed: Minimize regulation, and apply code standard bonuses for providing... Other (please specify) 4% 30% WWI 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 69 people answered this question, 18 people (26%) want the development codes to 'allow' middle housing by meeting minimum standards required by the state law. This option would require more regulations, less flexibility, and less potential to reduce the future cost of housing in the community. 21 people (30%) of the survey respondents want the city to encourage more middle housing by removing code barriers and increasing flexibility to provide housing. This option would have less regulations, more design flexibility, and reduce potential housing cost than the 'allow' option. 27 people (39%) agree that the development code should 'maximize' the middle housing development by minimizing regulations and applying code standard bonuses for such developments. This option would have the least regulation, most flexibility and the most potential to reduce future cost of providing housing in the community. 3 survey respondents (4%) commented on this question with various suggestions. 1. One respondent wants the development codes to "encourage some regulations such as parking & maximize others such as any dwelling type on individual lots". 2. Other survey respondent commented; "Designate historic houses; limit number of high-density units per residential outline, do not subsidize developers, be mindful & creative in allowing current single homes to be bought & turned into a 'mini-tropolis' of ugly, uncreative, nondescript units that have no seeming spirit to the development & architectural construct." 3. A third person responded as, "Expand on undeveloped land rather than crowd out neighborhoods." Question 8: Feedback and Comments The last and optional survey question asked the respondents to share their feedback and comments about the Middle Housing Implementation. There were 30 comments received in the survey. People commented on various aspects of Middle Housing development such as the development standards, parking space requirement, aesthetics, and quality of the middle housing. People also commented about the increasing crowd in a neighborhood and suggested to have middle housing in new undeveloped areas of the community. 121 Page Attachment 2, Page 17 of 22 Public Outreach Report Several people commented about increasing the affordable housing stock in the Springfield community. The following relevant comments were received from the survey respondents: 1. "We need rules and regulations. But we need to loosen a few things so that ALL people can have a home." 2. "Even apartment communities that have one space per unit still struggle with parking when there are multi - car families or roommates with their own vehicles. Requiring each unit to have its own off-street parking space should be the minimum for every development." 3. "With the rising housing cost in Springfield, people will be looking towards middle housing. Instead of continuing to make people share rooms in a custom-built home that is overpriced, in rent, create some type of cost-effective detached dwelling options that are more affordable." 4. "The key to preserving the feel of single-family neighborhoods is the outside appearance. Regulation should cover number of cars in the common streets through zone parking permits and on property as well as landscaping/weed control for fire prevention." 5. "1 appreciate Springfield accepting input. I hope that Springfield does not go the way of Eugene in the ridiculously, nondescript facades that are being designed. Create a signature model 'We can do better'. Keep prospect in mind regarding the viability and perspective of how the community will present in the years to come. Do not displace low-income residential units "mobile home parks - which are the best low-income housing units available currently -for monolithic, high-end units. Set standards to include the low-income community; do not just create a paper trail of intention." 6. "Density is good, especially near transit options like bus routes and *separated* bike paths, but primary concern is quality of buildings. New rules should encourage existing Springfield residents and property owners to expand on their own properties and reduce real estate investor incentive to throw up low -quality housing that they will fail to maintain and will be falling down after 20 years of rain and extreme weather." 7. "1 appreciate the opportunity to add my voice on this topic. 1 hope that Springfield also has a plan in place to make sure a healthy portion of this new development is truly affordable." 8. "Maximizing the amount of middle housing allowed and minimizing regulation is the smartest option and would be a great step towards lowering housing costs, thereby creating more supply and lowering the excessive demand there is for housing at this point in time." 9. "At first 1 didn't care to much about having multiple housing units on one lot. 1 know it is necessary to increase opportunities for more to be homeowners. If the city can make these dwellings look nice, upscale and provide a bit of niceties to the homes, that would be great for potential homeowners." 10. "While housing is needed and important, so is community safety, aesthetics, and space. We need to look for options that are less likely to look crowded, such as many cars on the street or tiny detached units that have families crammed together. The town house option looks the nicest and allows families to have a more "upscale" option for less. An especially efficient option would be to have housing over commerce. This would reduce cars on the road allowing people can shop where they live." 11. "We should remove as many barriers as humanly possible to incentivize the construction of new housing." 12. "Affordable market rate is important. I want a garage and lots of windows, but 1 don't need granite countertops. Units should match aesthetic of street and neighborhood. No ugly boxes. Look to classic house plans. Washburne already had plexes that match the area." 13. "1 consider maximizing middle housing essential to the community's health and well-being." 14. "The MDR zone should allow the some flexibility in housing options as the LDR zone" 15. "Please consider becoming well acquainted with the extensive literature on the deleterious health effects of high density living before making any decisions. Thank you." 16. "What are the options and differences for the Washburne Historic Distric Development Codes?" 131 Page Attachment 2, Page 18 of 22 Public Outreach Report 17. "While 1 fully agree that more housing is needed, I feel not enough thought is given to infrastructure to support more homes." 18. "Keep the government out of people's homes. It's okay to regulate for safety reasons, however, you cannot tell me how many windows I must have on the front of my development property and how to design it aesthetically." 19. "We also need homes for purchasing that cannot be bought up by Investment Owners, or Hedge funds. We are being bought and extorted by property managers with little to no regulation on the quality of said housing and people are forced to pay for lower quality housing at inflated rates due to housing shortages. 1 propose the consideration of houses being built and sold to DevNW enrollee's and Section 8 Case Managed individuals in order to free up low-income housing and allow for those who worked hard to leave low-income but can't quite make it in the standard market to have the opportunity to be homeowners. I also propose any landlord renting properties be subjected to annual quality inspections and be fined for not maintaining their properties." 20. "Each unit needs one parking space on the property. This minimally impacts the surrounding neighborhoods, and it is safer for drivers and pedestrians." 21. "Maximizing flexibility is definitely needed. Thank you" 22. "1 appreciate the considerations of changes to the development codes, but 1 don't want to see it become a free-for-all. If we remove too many guidelines someone is bound to take advantage of it." 23. "What about Tiny Homes and Grandma Cottages" 24. "1 just visited the Midwest where there are many smaller homes & trailers. It became apparent to me that Oregon demands too much equality. 25. "Where it's a choice between being aesthetic vs packing in the most people and saving the most money, 1 prefer that we are attractive with a "calming" feel so Springfield can have a classy reputation and residents develop pride for how attractive and calming our city is to look and walk around in." 26. "The new cottages for $300K on 19th aren't even selling. Too crowded in an already crowded area. Housing advantages should help people not landlords who don't live here. Space is very important, and homeowners invested in a single-family home shouldn't be crowded out by plexes being put up. Please develop new sites for new plexes, don't add to the stress of Springfield's other unappealing qualities. Let's make it a place that feels good, not crowded." 27. "1 may have to move myself and family from Oregon as the price of buying a house and/or renting is astronomical. 1 was told by a realtor 1 could sell my house here in Oregon and buy two really nice houses in other states. Considering it as 1 could help my sons with getting a decent place to live, and they both work from home so moving is not a problem for them. The prices now are unsustainable IMO. Thank you for the survey" 28. "Springfield should remain a small town, that's the reason people live here. Getting too many out of state investors that could care less about our quality of life." 29. "Some areas of Springfield are better suited to middle housing infill as they are near parks/open space, public transportation, shopping, etc. Other areas are not due to hills and the associated challenges of parking, land stability, etc. 1 don't think there's a one -size -fits -all solution for our community. I am very much in favor of increasing our stock of affordable housing, including encouraging infill. But 1 think expanding the UGB and decreasing development costs needs to be a primary part of the solution. Infill in the form of quadplexes and townhouses on top of longstanding single family homes will only serve to destabilize neighborhoods as owner -occupied residences disappear. Those who value the elbow room, quiet, and privacy they've had will be driven out to subdivisions with CCRs prohibiting this type of housing. That will further the gap between those with means and those without." 30. "1'm a homeowner in the Washburne and have been for 7 years. I've lived in Springfield for 15 years. 1 have a wife and 2 young kids. We love Springfield and we think that the improvements made to the Washburne and downtown area are phenomenal. We truly love Springfield and the direction it's heading. Please do not lower 141 Page Attachment 2, Page 19 of 22 Public Outreach Report standards to add low-income housing or allow people to build ADU's and sublet their property. The direction Springfield and downtown are heading are wonderful and I hope that the people who lead the downtown revitalization continue to push forward with their plans.... Don't lower standards to meet quotas or minimums. " c.) Demographic Survey The optional demographic section asked the survey respondents questions regarding their residency status, living situation, age, race, and ethnicity. This information helped the project staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council to understand who was able to engage and provide input to the project and whose opinion wasn't heard in the survey. The additional comment section gave the opportunity to the community members to provide their valuable opinion for the code update project. Question 1: Residency Status Out of the 66 people who answered their residency status 55 (83%) people live in Springfield, 23 community members or 35% of the respondents work in Springfield. 45 (68%) survey respondents, own a property in Springfield. Overall, most people who took the survey were a Springfield resident. Please tell us about your residency status in the City of Springfield. Select all that apply. I live in Springfield 83% I own property in Springfield 68% 1 work in Springfield 35% 1 own a business in Springfield 12% None of the above ■ 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Question 2: Homeowners or Renters ( Living Situation) Out of the 68 people who responded to this survey question; 81% of them, 55 people, own the residence that they live in. 13 community members (19%) rent their residence. None of the community members was either sheltered or unsheltered at the time of taking this survey. Overall, most people who took the survey were homeowners in the community. 151 Page Please tell us about your living situation. I own the residence I live in 81% I rent the residence I live in 19% I do not own or rent, but I am sheltered 0% I do not own or rent; I am unsheltered 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Attachment 2, Page 20 of 22 Public Outreach Report Question 3: Age Range Out of 68 members who responded to this question, 17 people were 35-44 years old, 12 people were 25 -34 - years old and 12 people were 45-54 years old. Only 2 people in the age range of 18-24 years responded to the survey. There were however no participants in the 12-17 years age group. Please tell us your age range. 75 yr. & above 1 6% 65 - 74 yr. 55 - 64 yr. 45 - 54 yr. 35 - 44 yr. 25 - 34 yr. 18 - 24 yr. � 3% 12-17 yr. 0% 0% 5% 10% Question 4: Gender Identity ■ 15% 16% 18% 25% 18% 15% 20% 25% 30% Of the 68 total respondents to this question, 28 were female and 30 were male respondents. 10 people declined to reveal their gender identity. Overall, both male and female community members participated equally in the survey. Please tell us about your sex/gender/gender identity. Select all that apply. I decline to answer this question 15% Male 41% Female 1 44% Another gender identity ■ 1% Transgender 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Question 5: Race and Ethnicity Of the total 68 people who responded to this question, 52 people identified themselves as White/Caucasia, 2 people identified as Black or African American and 7 people identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. 161 Page Attachment 2, Page 21 of 22 Public Outreach Report Please tell us about your racial/ethnic identity. Select all that apply. I decline to answer this question White or Caucasian Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian or Asian American American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Another racial/ethnic identity Question 6: Additional Thoughts & Comments � 16% 76% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% At the end of the demographic survey, community members had the option to provide additional thoughts and comments. The survey received 17 additional comments that suggest community member's opinion about middle housing implementation in the city. Some community members are grateful and believe middle housing will improve housing affordability in the city while few members think that middle housing will overpopulate Springfield and bring more crime into the community. Following are the relevant public comments that were received in the survey. 1. "I would like to see communities built. Units with 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedrooms all built on the same lot." 2. "I am concerned about crime associated with high density dwellings. 1 understand the need to implement the new state law. Education regarding the positive and negative aspects of this type of housing will do a lot to enhance acceptance." 3. "1 also work with unhoused families in Lane County on a daily basis and see the struggles we face due to housing shortages, and slumlords in Springfield. 1 am so grateful Springfield is taking a serious approach to reducing housing barriers and ensuring that we can reduce the unhoused population by creating housing." 4. "I've seen what is happening at Marcola Meadows and those are not well-built houses. Anything that encourages that type of development is bad news for the quality of our city." 5. "1 live in a condominium. Creating more affordable, non-traditional housing is a must." 171 Page Attachment 2, Page 22 of 22 Public Outreach Report MEMORANDUM City of Springfield Date: 1/18/2021 To: Springfield Planning Commission and BRIEFING Lane County Planning Commission From: Mark Rust, AICP, Current Planning Supervisor MEMORANDUM Subject: Development Code Update Project ISSUE 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 hometown feel now and in the future. Staff is asking the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions to conduct a joint regular session to deliberate on the package of development code amendments that are the result of the Development Code Update Project, Phases I and II. BACKGROUND Staff last presented to the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions on January 4, 2022 during the work session and public hearing on the draft code proposals. At that meeting, the joint Planning Commissions closed the public hearing and left the record open until 10 a.m. on 1/18/22. DISCUSSION The proposed code changes are contained in Attachment 2, Order and Recommendation, as Exhibits A, Phase 1 Code Sections — Housing; Exhibit B, Phase 2 Code Sections — Employment Lands; and Exhibit C, Other Code Sections with minor changes. These proposed code changes are supported by Findings in the Staff Report, Exhibit D to Attachment 2. Multiple corrections and changes were identified as needing to be made to the public hearing draft of the code sections. Included as Attachment 4 is a list of changes made to the public hearings draft for consideration during deliberations. Topics that arose during the public hearing that could be discussed during the deliberations are included below and staff has provided a summary or discussion of each topic for consideration by the Planning Commissions. 1. Community Survey Results Toward the end of the 1/4/22 joint Planning Commission meeting staff mentioned the Community Survey results contained in the hearing packet as part of the Public Outreach Report (1/4/22 AIS Packet Attachment 5, page 588 of 625). The community survey results represent input from 80 community members. For some perspective, if 80 people had each testified for 3 minutes at the public hearing that would be four hours of testimony. It is estimated that the survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete, in addition to the time to view the Virtual Open House that provided information on the topics asked about in the survey. This represents a significant time commitment and interest from community members. Staff refers to results from the community survey below to help inform direction on some of the topics for further discussion. Attachment 3, Page 1 of 6 2. Which code sections apply outside the city limits As discussed by the Planning Commissions at the public hearing it would be helpful to identify what code sections are not applicable outside of the city limits. The code sections that do not apply outside the city limits are not within the scope of review of the Lane County Planning Commission, rather just the Springfield Planning Commission. Since many of the code provisions apply both outside and inside the city limits, and these are integrated with some code provisions that might only apply within the city limits, it is very difficult to separate the code into sections that apply in the different areas. However, there are some sections that clearly only apply inside the city limits. Staff has highlighted these sections of the code in grey for ease of identifying when a whole section does not apply outside the city limits. 3. Lot sizes The state rules for implementing middle housing requires a city to allow fourplexes on lots of 7,000 square feet and above. Through the community survey results (Attachment 5, page 13 of 22, to the 1/4/22 PC public hearing packet, overall page 600 of page 625 of the packet) it is clear that the survey responses support allowing middle housing on lower lots sizes than the minimum required by state law. A majority of respondents, 59%, want to allow triplexes and fourplexs on smaller lots sizes than what are required by state law. Of this 59% that support lower lot sizes, 37% don't want any minimum lot size. Options for consideration by the Planning Commissions on this topic include: a. Allow fourplexes on lots that are 5,000 square feet and above. (less than the 7,000 sq. ft. required by state law) b. Allow triplexes on lots below the 5,000 square feet required by state law. (specify number) c. Allow all "plex" middle housing types on lots as small as 3,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size for single -unit dwellings and duplexes. d. Require all "plex" middle housing types to meet the minimum lot sizes specified in state law (5,000 for triplexes, 7,000 for fourplexes). 4. Lot coverage/impervious surface At the public hearing testimony was provided regarding the proposed lot coverage/impervious surface area standard for residential development (SDC 3.2.225, page 8 of 34 of Attachment 2, or page 8 of 112. Overall PDF page number of the packet, page 20 of 625). The draft code proposes to regulate lot coverage through total impervious surface area, rather than the amount of lot covered by structure. The difference in these two approaches is that the existing lot coverage standard only accounts for the area covered by structures (a defined term). The proposal to regulate by total impervious surface (a defined term) would include paved areas such as driveways, walkways, patios etc. in addition to structures. Based on this increase in area counted, the amount allowed to be covered is proposed to be increased from 45% (3.2-215 in the existing code for the LDR/R-1 district) to 60% in the proposed code. The concept of regulating by impervious surface, rather than by lot coverage, is not new in the code. The existing code (SDC 3.2-215) includes regulating by impervious surface area on lots/parcels with more than 15 percent slope or above an elevation of 670 feet, where the maximum impervious surface inclusive of structures, patios, and driveways, must not exceed 35 percent. In addition, under the existing code, any lot/parcel less than 4,500 square feet must have a maximum impervious surface coverage of 60 percent. Through the community survey results (Attachment 5, page 14 of 22, to the 1/4/22 PC public hearing packet, overall page 601 of page 625 of the packet) it is clear that the survey responses support allowing higher lot coverage for middle housing. An overwhelming 76% of the respondents want to encourage or maximize the amount of lot coverage that is allowed, with 38% wanting increased lot coverage for middle housing and an additional 38% wanting no maximum lot coverage. The purpose for proposing to regulate by impervious surface for all residential development is to better account for stormwater runoff. However, based on testimony at the public hearing, the proposed impervious Attachment 3, Page 2 of 6 surface standard may not be easy to understand. Additionally, staff received additional input after the public hearing that the proposed impervious surface standard of 65% would not allow typical development that is allowable under the existing 35% lot coverage standard. Staff is prepared to discuss this topic further during deliberations and provide an example. Based on this information, staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the lot coverage/impervious surface standard. Options for the Planning Commission to consider include: a. Increase the proposed impervious surface area for residential development from 65% to 70%. b. Revert the impervious surface standard back to the existing lot coverage standard of 45% based on coverage by structures only. 5. Parking The topic of parking was discussed in testimony received at the public hearing. There was a request to reduce the parking required for residential/middle housing development. The current code requires one space for each dwelling unit for most residential uses (ex. four total spaces for a fourplex). The request is to lower this standard to one half space per dwelling unit (ex. two total spaces for a fourplex). Additionally, the commissions discussed whether parking requirements should be reduced for development along frequent transit corridors, or in other situations. The existing development code has parking reductions credits for development abutting frequent transit corridors, for on street parking, and for providing additional bicycle parking. These existing parking reduction credits are proposed to be kept in the new draft code (SDC 4.6.110). Through the community survey results (Attachment 5, page 15 of 22, to the 1/4/22 PC public hearing packet, overall page 602 of page 625 of the packet) it is clear that the survey respondents want to require as much parking as allowed by state law. The results show that 57% of respondents want to require the most parking allowed, while 40% of respondents want to require less parking. Staff anticipates that the topic of parking will need to be addressed again in the near future in response to changes in state planning regulations, specifically the forthcoming Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities) rules. In anticipation of these forthcoming rules and based on the survey results, staff recommends keeping the proposed parking standards as drafted. 6. Historic District - Tree preservation and demolition of structures The topic of tree preservation was raised in the public hearing testimony, specific to trees in the Historic District. There are existing tree preservation standards in the current development code for the Historic District, see SDC 3.3-900. The removal of large or established trees in the Historic District is a major alteration that is regulated through a Type 2 procedure. Additionally, cutting of trees is regulated city wide by existing code SDC 5.19-100. The demolition of structures in the Historic District is regulated by SDC 3.3-950. These Historic District standards are existing and are not being proposed to be modified as part of the proposal. Staff recommends no changes to the proposed code in response to this public comment. 7. Criteria for Electrical utilities The approval criteria for electrical utilities in the existing development code are contained in the Site Plan Review section of the code (SDC 5.17-100). With the rewriting of the Site Plan Review section, the draft code relies upon the infrastructure standards in Chapter 4 and references these standards in the new site plan 1 https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/LAR/Pages/CFEC.aspx Attachment 3, Page 3 of 6 review section. Staff identified that the electrical utilities criteria from the Site Plan Review section did not get included in the new Infrastructure Standards — Utilities section (4.3.100). Staff has added back in the Electrical Services approval criteria to SDC 4.3.127 that were previously contained in the Site Plan Review standards. This change is reflected in the proposed code in Attachment 2, Exhibit B, so staff recommends no additional changes to the proposed code for this item. 8. Scrivener's errors and corrections There are multiple scrivener's errors and corrections that need to be made in the draft code. Staff recognizes the need for some formatting changes for consistency as well. After the proposed code is adopted, the City Attorney's Office can edit the development code to correct obvious scrivener's errors and to update section numbers and headings that do not change the meaning of the code, outside of a formal code amendment process. Due to only updating some portions of the code with Phase 1 and 2 of the project, additional changes will need to be made for consistency with adoption. Attached to this packet is a list of changes to the code since the public hearing draft (Attachment 4). Additionally, some scrivener's errors that have been identified and corrected include: i. Attachment 2, page 14 of 33 (page 48 of 118, or page 60 of 625) SDC 4.7.385(D)(1)(b), the first sentence contains the word "masonry", this has been correct to "masonry." ii. Attachment 2, page 31 of 33 (page 65 of 118, or page 77 of 625) SDC 4.7.400(E)(4), the first sentence includes "...is not be permitted...", this has been changed to "...is not permitted...." iii. Attachment 2, page 7 of 46 (page 79 of 118, or page 91 of 625), SDC 6.1.100, Commercial Use, "...selling of goods and services..." is changed to "...selling of goods or services...." iv. Attachment 2, page 3 of 13 (page 13 of 168, or page 143 of 625) SDC3.2.410(A)(3), the first sentence includes "Type II", this has been changed to "Type 2" for consistency. V. Attachment 2, page 26 of 40 (page 136 of 168, or page 266 of 625) SDC 5.1.810(C), the second sentence "...call up the a decision..." has been changed to "...call up a decision...." vi. Attachment 2, page 26 of 40 (page 136 of 168, or page 266 of 625) SDC 5.1.810(C), the second sentence "......conduct an on the record review of the decision on the record and limited to issues..." has been changed to "...conduct an on the record review of the decision and limit issues...." vii. Attachment 2, page 26 of 40 (page 136 of 168, or page 266 of 625) SDC 5.1.810(B). "...any grant of de novo review must control over..." has been changed to "...any grant of de novo review controls over...." viii. Attachment 2, page 31 of 40 (page 141 of 168, or page 271 of 625) SDC 5.1.925(A), "...in the absence of an amended or a new application" has been changed to "...in the absence of an amended or new application." ix. Attachment 2, page 1 of 8 (page 151 of 168, or page 281 of 625) SDC 5.15.110(A), second sentence "If an application triggers the need to for a..." has been changed to "If an application triggers the need for a...." X. Attachment 2, page 4 of 222 (page 302 of 625) SDC 2.1-135.F.3, "Postage fees will not be return" has been changed to "Postage fees will not be returned." 9. Other proposed edits The following edits have been proposed thorough comments received and should be considered and discussed by the Planning Commission: i. The definition of "Driveway Approach" in SDC 6.1.100 should include "including the approach wings (see diagram below)" for clarification. ii. The definition of "Kitchen" in SDC 6.1.100 should provide clarification if this is intended to apply to indoors habitable areas so to not include outdoor BBQ/kitchen type areas, including such things as fish cleaning stations, etc. As a note for the commissions, dwellings are not regulated to only having one kitchen; the word "kitchen" is relevant to the definition of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) which must have a separate kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area and outdoor entrance. If a portion of Attachment 3, Page 4 of 6 a single unit dwelling includes a kitchen but not a separate bathroom, sleeping area, or outdoor entrance, then it may be considered part of the primary dwelling. iii. The definition of "Lot Coverage" in SDC 6.1.100 should include "excluding 18 inch eave overhangs". iv. In SDC 3.3.800 Urbanizable Fringe, the Use Categories table under the section 3.3-815 should include "Accessory Dwelling Units" and "Duplexes" alongside "Detached Single Unit Dwellings". V. In SDC 3.3.800 Urbanizable Fringe, section 3.3-820(A), add "Duplexes" alongside `Detached Single Unit Dwellings' and `Accessory Dwelling Units' to read, "The siting of detached single unit dwellings, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units in the OF -10 Overlay District that require a Future Development Plan as specified in SDC 5.12-120E shall be reviewed under Type procedure." vi. The language in Section 4.7.380(C)(1)(d) has been changed to include "more than" and the edited version reads, "For multiple unit housing developments that have a net density of more than 20 dwelling units per acre in the R-2 district, or more than 30 dwelling units per net acre in the R-3 district the Common Open Space standard does not apply." vii. Section 6.1.110 should include definition for "Walkable Distance" to provide a reference around the shortest distance measured along a straight line between two developments or sites. The definition suggested is "The shortest distance as measured along a straight line between a point along the perimeter of the development site and a point along the property line of the destination." This definition would be applicable to SDC4.7.380(C)(3)(a) as well as other areas of the code that provide alternative standards when something is a walkable distance to another thing. 10. Annexation The topic of annexation was brought up during the 1/4/22 joint Planning Commission meeting. No substantive changes are being proposed to the Annexation section (SDC 5.7. 100) of the development code. Any substantive changes to this section are outside the scope of this project. Changes regarding annexation policy would have to be initiated by the City Council. If the Springfield and Lane Planning Commissions would like to provide a recommendation to the Springfield City Council and Board of County Commissioners regarding topics that are outside the scope of this project, such as annexation, staff recommends that the commissions may adopt a separate recommendation to the elected officials regarding topics they should consider. This separate recommendation would not be part of the formal recommendation on the code updates but could be provided to the elected officials at the same time, for their consideration. SUMMARY There is a lot of information presented in the new draft code changes. Direction from the Springfield City Council at the beginning of this project is to remain policy neutral regarding the existing Springfield Comprehensive Plan policy framework except as required to comply with state requirements. The code changes are not intended to modify topics or areas of the code that have been in place and are established as part of the land use framework in Springfield where changes are not required to meet state law. The changes are intended to support efficient, timely, and clear development review and to support Springfield's economic development priorities while honoring Springfield's hometown feel now and in the future. The Council has also generally instructed that the code updates should not significantly change the manner in which the code has traditionally implemented land use policy in the City, except to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose and objectives of the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the joint Planning Commissions deliberate and consider the testimony received both verbally at the public hearing and in writing submitted into the record. After the joint deliberations, the Planning Commissions could proceed in one of the following ways: Attachment 3, Page 5 of 6 1. Make formal recommendations on the Development Code Update Project. 2. Schedule additional deliberation times either jointly or separately. Ultimately, each Planning Commission must make a formal recommendation to its respective elected body (Springfield City Council for the Springfield Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners for the Lane County Planning Commission). The elected bodies are required to adopt ordinances implementing identical code provisions and so staff recommend that the two Commissions adopt identical recommendations to their elected bodies. Staff are requesting approval from the Springfield Planning Commission of the Order and Recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Development Code amendments. Staff are prepared to provide additional information as requested and be available for questions or discussion through the deliberation process. ACTION REQUESTED Each Planning Commissions is requested to approve a recommendation on the proposed Development Code amendments. Attachment 3, Page 6 of 6 novel^rw�+ P^A, 1 ImAn+o Dr^;ems+ C�keA, X10 / J ? /1 C /'711 I /4 Planning Commission - Work Session or Communication Memo NOTE: The dashed lines and shadowed colored bars are the original timeline. The brighter colored bars and bars outlined in red represent the revised timeline. Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1 IRADI FRAFNTATMKI IMNLEWNIAIIUN