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