Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 10 03 WSCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting Page 1 of 16 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD TUESDAY, October 3, 2017 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioner James presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Koivula, Commissioners Nelson, Vohs, Dunn, Landen, Nelson and Sherwood. Also present were, Current Development Manager Greg Mott, Current Development Senior Planner Andy Limbird, City Attorney Kristina Kraaz and Management Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff. Councilor ABSENT- None WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT 1. DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR COMMITTEE STATUS UPDATE- Commissioner James opened the October 3rd work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Springfield. This evening, we will be discussing the encouragement of Accessory Dwelling Units by the City of Springfield's Development Code and Sandy Belson's, staff is here to review information with us. We've already had discussion about this. This was a meeting that you had while I was enjoying my time in Maui. I've read the intended information, he will turn over the meeting to Sandy, and we'll move through this process. Sandy Belson as she mentioned during the Planning Commissions previous meeting acting as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), we have scheduled a public hearing for October 17th. This work session is a way for you to be prepared for that hearing, to be able to see the evolution of the code amendments, and then to start to review the public comments that we've gotten from the open house and Historic Commission. And to get you to start thinking about, whether or not the proposed code amendments warrant some further changes to respond to public comment, or to add clarity to what is required. I'm going to take you through a brief PowerPoint to get you in tune with these, and also just point out that we had these displays at the open house. We had some other things there too, but I thought these might be useful to just get in mind some images, what is possible that you like or don't like with the accessory buildings. To set the context, the program to encourage Accessory Dwelling units is part of a council strategy to address housing needs. Other strategies in this whole spectrum of strategies to address the full housing continuum, include expanding the overnight parking program, contributing to income-qualified housing, such as the Royal Building that was built by St. Vincent de Paul, to secure property targeted for residential development. We're using our Community Development Block Grant Funds potentially purchasing property and looking at publicly owned property that could be used for residential development. We currently have two programs that assist homeowners with community development block grant fund. One is our shop programs. That provides first-time home buyers qualified with down payment or closing cost assistance. We also have the home repair program that provides services to low-income home owners who need help with repairs, or accessibility improvements to be able to stay in their homes simply. Then the last strategy is to promote housing of diverse types. The encouraging construction of City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 2 of 16 ADUs has three components. One of them is to waive the system development charge, which have been waived and is in place for two years. Secondly, to promote awareness about the possibilities for- Commissioner James The city's already taken action on waiving the -- and I recall that. Sandy Yes. Commissioner James Good. Sandy Then, the third is what you are here for tonight, to revise the development code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add an Accessory Dwelling. As you go into these amendments, there are some considerations to keep in mind, that we're trying to encourage development by reducing the regulatory hurdles. But at the same time, we need to be protecting the character of the existing neighborhoods in the city. How do we find that balance and keep those two aspects in mind as we go through these code amendments? I pulled out the key changes that are being proposed. There's a slide for each. Per your direction, we are looking at allowing Accessory Dwellings and it's some properties that are within the Washburne District and then also that -- as directed by council, medium density zoning and then as directed by legislation we included high density. Because the legislation requires all zoning districts that allow single-family homes to also allow Accessory Dwellings. Again, this is from the Planning Commission to move the minimum size requirement of 300 square feet. This drawing is an example of one house being constructed at Emerald Village, and all of the homes constructed at Emerald Village in Eugene are smaller than 300 square feet. This one is 268 excluding this storage on the right hand side. Per councils direction to remove the ratio requirement, so currently, Accessory Dwelling Unit cannot be greater than 40%. The main dwelling foyer excluding garage and so allowing it to be smaller than, as long as it's not larger than 750 square feet. This example is one in Portland that I saw, where this small house in front, if our 40% requirement was in place that Accessory Dwelling will not be allowed to be as big as it is. Here's an example in Springfield where the front house was small enough to become the Accessory Dwelling and then those primary dwellings built behind it. Commissioner James In a case such as that, the large unit built in the back, being built as the primary would still be required to pay the SDC’s, right? Sandy Yes. Commissioner James Okay. But then how would they recover the STC task that they wouldn't? Sandy They wouldn't. Commissioner James Yes. Sandy Because that[crosstalk] It would only be in a situation where you're in the primary dwelling and you build an ADU, it would waive the SDC’s, right? Okay. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 3 of 16 Commissioner Vohs Sequence. Commissioner James Yes. Sandy That's my understanding, council could judge that, otherwise they did ask for a year check-in to see how things are going. There could be a change to that if the council so desires, but then we'd have to think about how they would party that. Commissioner James Just FYI there -- those are city SDC’s, [inaudible 00:08:00] SDC's are still on the books or any- [crosstalk] Sandy Sorry. MWMC. Commissioner James Exactly. Sandy Yes. Metropolitan Waste Water. Commissioner James Metropolitan Waste Water SDC's are also similar. Commissioner Vohs What I was going to say, if I was going with this sequence, you are looking at considerably more SDC for the primary being secondary than the other way around, because of the site of the structure. Commissioner James Yes. Exactly. Commissioner Sherwood Yes. So these reduction SDC’s are a deletion of SDC’s, for the time being, is an incentive for people to do ADU's, right. Does that affect people doing internal ADUs in such a program? Commissioner Vohs Yes. Sandy Yes. It doesn't matter what type of ADU. Commissioner Sherwood Okay. Commissioner Vohs Have you had any -- like you would have to add bathrooms and stuff. Commissioner Sherwood Right. Commissioner Vohs Because I think transportation would be -- yes. Sandy A proposal to allow more flexibility in the location of the entrance to the Accessory Dwellings. Here's the case where there is a basement Accessory Dwelling and the main dwelling is up above. Both doors are facing the street. Although, from the street, you probably wouldn't see that basement door because it is blocked by a staircase, but allowing that flexibility of the location allows this configuration. Council direction to waive on-street parking requirements for the ADU if there is no on-street parking available that adopts the property, and we worked on some language around that the last time, and that there are no adopted plans to renew the on-street parking. Just to give you an example and I have not gone there and personally check this, but I'm told that there are some units in the back. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 4 of 16 This slide gives the idea that if you have a paved parking, a paved driveway that leads to parking, then the parking wouldn't have to be paved. Now, this example does not provide the 18 feet from the property line that we would require to be paved, but it gives you the idea of what we're looking at, as well as being nice and close. Removing the requirement for the property owner to live onsite, which means that both units could be rentals. Allowing manufactured homes, type two are the smaller manufactured homes and approved for all structures as an ADUs as long as they are permitted, inspected and approved by the local authority, with a footnote that in Historic District, all ADUs must meet the Historic District's alteration standards. Then, also allowing more options for meeting the design standards, with again the carve-out that in the Historic District, they would have to meet alteration standards for the district. That highlights the changes. There are some others that are less substantive that are included in your packet. Then, also handed out on your table is the recommendation from the Historic Commission . I'll talk about that first. There was unanimous support for Accessory Dwelling Units. They had no issues with using on-street parking to meet the parking requirement. They did raise the idea that they don't want any new driveways. Because that's part of that characteristic of historic neighborhood to have lawns without driveways in front of the homes. Any parking would either have to be on the street, or with front alley access, as long as that was an option available. If there was no other way to provide, they'd need a parking union to look at adding a driveway. That was their concern or view on parking. They don't want manufactured homes, but think that the alteration standards would prohibit that type of unit anyway. They just want to be clear that that's their expectation. I'm sorry, I skipped number two there. They do not want to have the door for both dwellings if they're in the same building to be facing the same street. They really struggled with the owner occupancy. There's mixed feelings about that. There are also code provisions in the Historic District that require a business that is housed within the Washburne to be allowed only if the property owner lives onsite. There would be a good tie-in to that, in terms of requiring the owner of the Accessory Dwelling Unit to live onsite. They didn't come to conclusion and decided to schedule their next meeting, their November meeting, in time to be able to discuss it further and how to input into the council's recommendations. They don't have a recommendation for you at this time for the Washburne District, but that is an issue that is under their jurisdiction. Commissioner James They will not have anything prior to the public hearing, is it? Sandy Not unless your hearing is extended beyond their next meeting date of November 16. Commissioner James Okay. Sandy In terms of process, they found that an Accessory Dwelling unit within the Washburne would be an increase in intensity of use, and therefore, warrant a type two procedure. Type two land use decision would require notice to surrounding property owners and that would also ensure that there is some review of the alteration standards to apply to that. People could comment on whether they were meeting those alteration standards in adding their Accessory Dwelling. Commissioner James The staff concur with that? City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 5 of 16 Sandy Yes. Then they also suggested adding some guidelines to the Springfield Historic Design Guidelines specific to Accessory Dwellings. We will enter this into the record at your next public hearing as formal testimony, but this is for you to start thinking about now. Commissioner James Good. Sandy Then, the other item was a compilation of open-house calls. In general, they were positive. The concerns that were raised during the open-house were around allowing mobile homes as a set; although, we would only allow manufactured homes. Commissioner James By definition, there is a difference between a manufactured home and a mobile- [crosstalk] Sandy It's a date on when it was constructed, and not construction date affects the standards. Commissioner James Okay. But a manufactured home can have wheels under it and be drag in, and set down and the wheels taken off, and set on a foundation. Right? It's really date of construction. Sandy There's also some concern raised about the owner occupancy, not requiring that any further. Then, a question about the maximum size of the dwelling, whether there could be some correlation to the lot size for that. That's the summary of these comments. We're not in deliberation, so you're not needed to make any decisions tonight. Because of the work session you could ask questions or discuss options, or things that you would want staff to look into further. Before we get there, I'll just say I have one more item to talk about. At your last meeting, you asked about the parking requirement, what other jurisdictions are doing. I could also report on that, or we could talk about what I've presented so far. Commissioner James Why don't we talk about what's been presented thus far, so we don't get too far downstream and then we'll address either. Any comments related to the Historic Commission 's feedback on process? Yes, Commissioner Vohs. Commissioner Vohs That's what I want to ask is the process. Is the thoughts of the Historic Commission going to be included as a recommendation to the City Council when it reaches them? Commissioner James Yes. That's what it sounds like to me. Sandy They're making a recommendation to you- Commissioner James Us. Sandy -it will be part of the record, so the council will have access to the full record. Any testimony that comes for the Planning Commission, the council can look at as well. Commissioner James Great. Commissioner Vohs But their thoughts will be conveyed to the council regardless of whether we agree with them or not? Sandy Correct. Commissioner Vohs Right. Okay. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 6 of 16 Sandy Correct. Commissioner Vohs Because I think originally, it wasn't -- Troy, you presented the idea originally of possibility of ADUs in the Historic District, wasn't it? Your thought- Commissioner Sherwood I don't know that it was, but I'm-- Commissioner Vohs Oh, okay. [crosstalk] Because I think the original thought was, looking at interior ADUs as the only possibility. Evidently, the Historic Commission expanded upon that to look at all aspects of ADUs. Sandy Yes, there was a comment that said -- and I'm not all that familiar with the Washburne. I haven't worked with it. I haven't done a lot of historic work. What was mentioned at the meeting is that, it would be difficult to add on to an existing structure to build an Accessory Dwelling. Because then that means you're removing some material to do so. I think either interior in an existing structure, or completely separate new building would be the most likely ways that you could add on- Commissioner James Add an ADU- Sandy Add an ADU. Commissioner James-in the Historic District. Sandy Right. Adding onto an existing structure would be problematic. Commissioner James Yes. That makes sense. Commissioner Sherwood That's why I recommended the interior ADUs, specifically for Washburne. Commissioner James Okay. Commissioner Sherwood Actually, I don't know who's on the Historic Commission, but I guess I thought they might go a little bit of a different direction. I know that their recommendations two days before, a lot of concurring opinions from the open house. The open-house, assuming that was separate people seem to concur a lot with the Historic Commission’s decision two days before, and overall I'm excited that that's the feedback that we got. So, I think that's generally what I was hoping for, for that district specifically and I still have some reservations about, as do they; although, on opposing sides I believe or our occupied piece, I would like to personally see both be allowed to be rentals. They are still mowing that over a little bit, but other than that, I think I'm excited about the conclusion that they've come to. They know more about the specificity of the Washburne rules than I do, if they agreed, I'm excited to see this is what they found. Commissioner James Good. Yes. For sure. Commissioner Vohs Exactly. Commissioner James If they're in the Washburne District isn't already, aren't already two doors on the same side, that couldn't be changed anyway with the Washburne rules, right? Or are not yes, because you couldn't change the exterior, right? City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 7 of 16 Sandy Well, I don't think there's a complete prohibition against making any change, but there's a process and you have to meet criteria. And so I'm not comfortable making a generalization that you can't change it. Commissioner James Okay. Commissioner Sherwood Yes. Digging in their rules a little bit deeper. Commissioner James Okay. Commissioner Koivula? Commissioner Koivula I'm also not certain if there's an existing building that has two perfectly good doors facing the same street, and it logically leads you to have that second one in ADU. I take a complete prohibition against to this, a little bit pointless. Sandy Those are good points that I can look into and talk with planners and see how would we deal with those situations, and how do we draft the language such that we're trying to be clear about what is or it is not allowed. Because we haven't drafted code amendments to address that yet. Commissioner Koivula Can I have one other comment. At one point we talked about non-paved access off of alleys. I think you came to the conclusion, we've come to the conclusion that the city would require paving. I was wondering, if there might be a way around that. Number one, the idea that if you paved an alley, or if you paved your parking, and then later the alley was developed, your grade is not going to be correct anyway. Because your alley's going to be built to slope and grain and stuff and it may not need existing ground. So, you'd be required to re-improve your alley to fit. So, you're basically doing your alley twice, or the city would have to do it. Sandy My understanding is, if you're taking access from the alley, that you are required to bring it up to city standard. Commissioner Koivula and however, I was thinking there might be a potential in this to require what's called a revocable development, revocable addition, I think it's called. Where you put a bond down and say, "If the alleyway comes through, I will participate and pay for part of the alley improvements and I'll also be sure to pave my driveway." If they were able to attach conditions like that to the property, and then if the alley was developed, but I think that that would cover it, if I'm not mistaken. Sandy That could be part of your recommendation to council, because that has a broader policy implication beyond the Accessory Dwellings, in terms of policies around public improvements. You can make a recommendation to council to consider that. Commissioner James Consider, yes. Sandy And when you get to your final recommendation. Commissioner Koivula Yes. Actually call it, Irrevocable Petition. Sandy Right. It's for public use. Kristina Kraaz: Usually, the alley has a lot of people down there too, it's not just one person. Commissioner James So, on to public comments portion. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 8 of 16 Commissioner Vohs Do you have the notes in covering this? Commissioner James Yes. Go right ahead. You want to- Commissioner Vohs No. Go ahead and do that and I was asking you here. Commissioner James Yes. I see that one of these comments was make a maximum size 750 square feet or 10%, has to do with how much Dwelling Unit space can be on the property. That really is not where we're headed with that. Is that correct? I mean, we're allowing, our recommendation moving forward is more flexible than that based on -- I'm sure there is some limitation of how much rough space there can be on a given property in the current code, right? Sandy Yes. I mean, we are not proposing any changes to lot coverage. Commissioner James Yes. Sandy But we are not also saying that it has to be on one or two floors other than the Accessory Dwelling cannot be taller than the main dwelling. The square footage of the ADU is not necessarily directly tied to lot coverage if you've got the ability to go through. Commissioner James Right. Okay. Other questions? Commissioner Koivula not necessarily in the public comments but separately. Commissioner James Yes. That's fine. Commissioner Koivula I guess in reading through the thing, page six of nine paragraph A2, you talk about some of the building standards required for the ADUs. You know, like how high this lots need to be and things like that. I wonder if it ought to say something to the effect of that the ADU needs to be made of, not necessarily the same. You specifically say, it doesn't have to be made the same as the home, but it ought to be materials comparable in quality to that used in the surrounding neighborhood. You know, If somebody drags in something that they put wheels under and it looks like junk and maybe it satisfies the building code, then we haven't enhanced the neighborhood. We haven't done anything except take all the neighbors off. Sandy The challenge with that approach is that you are starting to introduce some discretion in terms of comparing it to the neighborhood. Commissioner Koivula That's true.[laughter] Sandy If you can think about how you would characterize the neighborhood and design a place citywide, then what would the requirements be that we could have put in here? I think we could take that approach. When you're comparing it to the neighborhood, what are you looking at and how can you articulate that in a clear standard? Commissioner Vohs It's something very subjective. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 9 of 16 Commissioner Koivula I understand it's kind of loosey-goosey, but I think it's -- maybe you can't even do anything about it but to put in there that this thing kind of needs to stay within the character of the neighborhood, as opposed to looking like you wheeled in a bicycle and put a house on it. Sandy Our attorney has a comment. Kristina Kraaz: If I can interject, I guess- [crosstalk] I think what Sandy is getting at. There was a Senate Bill that was passed this last session, Article 1051. I think that we'll come to you at some point with an educational item, or maybe some proposed closure just to implement that. It clarifies that needed housing statutes that require clear and objective standards only for housing apply to all housing that you've identified as one way you are going to fill your housing requirements. And so, ADU's were specifically identified in the residentially use. Element of the City adopted a few years ago and so we have to have cleared objectives. We have to give a clear and objective way for each standard to be met. We can have a discretionary auction that the developer wants something different, but we by State Law have to make our standard compared to that. Commissioner Koivula Okay. Kristina: If that makes sense. Commissioner Koivula Do we have standards that talk about installation and energy efficiency and foundation stuff like that? Sandy The energy efficiency would be in the building code. Commissioner Koivula Okay. So those still very much apply? Commissioner Sherwood Absolutely. Commissioner Koivula Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Sandy The foundation piece that needs to be secured but I don't think the building code necessarily requires a foundation. It can be tied down to posts, you know, but not necessarily a full foundation. Commissioner James A concrete foundation. Commissioner Vohs Wheels are moved. [laughter] Commissioner James Yes. That's what scares me. Sandy That is something that- [crosstalk] Commissioner James Clearly, you could say, "Mobile units, wheels must be removed and they must be - - axles moved and they must be set on- [crosstalk] I mean, that's kind of an objective. Sandy That is a standard. That's what I was trying to say. Commissioner James That is a standard. Sandy Right, a standard about having a foundation and add that to your design standards. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 10 of 16 Commissioner James Just something to consider and that may -- I don't know what the City Councils leaning is on that, but I kind of like that. I think it makes more of a permanent fixture and not just a quick way to cheaply, very cheaply set something in the space. It might be a code that may not be appropriate. I mean, we're waving SDC’s, we're doing -- it's kind of a give and take. I think part of the owners' give I think is to -- part of this is a little bit of a commitment that this is going to be here for a while and it is what it is, you know, so feedback. Commissioner Dunn A good spot to look if we want already written up language on that would be mortgage guidelines. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mark] and I can send them to you specifically clearly state what a main actually a home has to have in order to be purchased. There's eight bullet points, it's pretty straightforward, wheels moved axle is off, XXXX. I could send them to you directly, but if it's public anyone go look at Fannie Mae's guidelines on manufacturing, they would come into play when that property went to be sold anyways in the future. I don't think it would be any sort of burden to have them come into play by putting on a manufactured home now. Commissioner James How do you all feel about that? Speaker 1: I think that's a good idea. Commissioner Dunn It's already written out there. It's already about how you purchase manufactured homes. Commissioner James I think what you're hearing from the Planning Commission is a general consensus around that point clear and objective standard that we would be interested in supporting. Sandy Right. That means I can start thinking about some languages you have ready. Commissioner James Commissioner Dunn, if could share that with- Commissioner Dunn I'll send you what I think would be a good start. Commissioner James Okay. Sandy Right. I think back to Council's direction, the Council did not give a lot of direction on this point. They said, they wanted to be more flexible but didn't want to allow shacks. They were not very clear about what standard they did want or not. They left that to the process. I have given you an option, but if there are other standards that you think would be appropriate, I think that's certainly something to think about as you're trying to do that, what I talked about before. We'll remove the regulatory requirements but ensure comply it with the neighborhood. Commissioner Dunn When I read the guidelines that I'll send to potential buyers who are looking at manufactured homes, when you read them I always summarize it as, "It has to look like a home." That's my personalization at the end. If you read these and if it meets these it will look like a home. It will be a manufactured home but it will look like a home. Commissioner Koivula Then you have to define that too. [crosstalk] Commissioner Dunn It pull as defined, that's my layman's terms at the end. Is I say, "If we meet these requirements it will look like a home." City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Sherwood Absolutely. Commissioner Koivula that's my concern. If you get somebody who looks like they just pulled a trailer in your neighborhood you've given ADUs a really bad name. You've made all the neighbors angry and we're not helping the city. Commissioner Dunn So I'll send the language, I think it would set us-- Commissioner James Yes. I think I hear we have general consensus that's something you would be interested in supporting, so. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Vohs Same page, I'm wondering what we're doing on Window Code under item D. We're looking at case six of nine. [crosstalk] The windows, why would we want to make a match the existing house? I mean, I can see that being an aesthetic, but say the existing house has really tiny little crummy windows, and you could have some nice windows. I also don't see the thing about the window shall not be wider than it is tall. Because I got sliders in my bathroom above the shower and they're just wonderful windows. They're really wide and they're only about that tall. Then also picture windows. I mean the old 1960s picture windows that were -- and I have window walls that's in my house too that are like nine feet wide and five feet tall. They're nice windows, I think. I'm not sure what we're trying to do with the window standard, but. Sandy Well, each of these are trying to give a choice, you either match what's there, or you have a different standard. In terms of the window, the alternate standard of, "No window shall be wider than it is tall." If you don't feel that that's appropriate for Springfield, we can either remove any language about windows or come up with an alternative. That language is something I borrowed from Portland's Code. The idea I think is that many manufactured homes often have those orientation windows. In a sense, you are trying to get them look more like a home. That's not necessarily going to be applicable consider and so it's like you are thinking that well, "Geez, some of these others really unlike the look of those ones". Commissioner Vohs I think there's a way to do windows that are going to be unaesthetic. The way you got to describe or to remove it and the way I got to describe it. I wonder what we are gaining? Commissioner Koivula Are we including just potentially divided sections, like maybe I have three windows that are together. And so, yes they're wider but there is a sense of division. So ergo each section is, in fact, taller than it is wide. Commissioner Dunn I thought I'd have on the Windows, just from my perspective. On my house, I have two front windows that are pretty far apart and they're about that wide and about that tall and I hate them. [laughter] The only two options with that doing an Accessory Dwelling Unit, would be matched those windows or have more windows that are taller than they are wide. I have to agree with you Mike that I really don't like that idea. Aesthetically it's not pleasing to me and I don't know who it is. It might be pleasing to other people, but I don't know I should necessarily make it a standard. Commissioner James What I'm hearing just to recap is we have an issue with your D- Windows that you've taken from Portland or some other municipality. I think what you're hearing is, we need to make this our own and it needs to be an objective standard that gives a little more flexibility than what is outlined here. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 12 of 16 Sandy I guess, do you think there's a need for a standard about windows? And it's a matter of coming up with what that is? Commissioner Dunn The thought I have is that if you talk even about window trim that would help. If you talk about window trim being similar to window trim on the house then that could match the style. Commissioner Koivula Well, and it does. C does part of that. [crosstalk] Commissioner Dunn Then, in that case, I think that window trim matching is probably enough regardless of size. So if you have a manufactured home, and I understand what you're talking about, like those really wide windows that we're looking through about that much they don't look nice. But I think that if we restrict window trim people that are going out of their way to get proper window trim will probably have normal windows, house windows. I don't know, it's an assumption I'm making. Commissioner Koivula How would you write it? Commissioner Dunn I would say that D doesn't need to exist as long as we have C for the window trim. As long as your windows are clear glass not anything weird like stained or anything. Moderator: This really refers only to windows on all street-facing facades. Commissioner Dunn Right. Commissioner James If one of these Dwelling Units is in the backyard and you can't even see it from the street would this eve apply? Commissioner Dunn No. Commissioner James I think this is geared more toward possibly building onto an existing dwelling. Potentially or something of that nature. I don't know that it's necessary, but then again I think that our core folks who deal with this kind of stuff all the time have a lot better sense of what makes sense in terms of development. I would just ask it -- you know, that's the question we have, is this necessary? Staff may say absolutely it is, but we can be a little more flexible in how this language is worded. I would just direct staff, I think it's our direction to take a look at this, we have some concerns about it. Does that make sense? Commissioner Vohs Yes. Commissioner Dunn Yes. Commissioner Koivula Yes. Commissioner James Great. [pause] Okay. Are there questions or comments with the stage? Commissioner Vohs That's good review. Speaker 1: Excellent package of changes. Commissioner Vohs Fair enough. Speaker 1: Yes. I thought it was-- most of it sound just great. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 13 of 16 Commissioner James Good. Sandy Well, we'll keep working at it and hopefully, by the time that we adopt it will be a good package. Commissioner James It will be. It will be. Commissioner Vohs It's already packaged. Commissioner James Springfield staff do amazing work. All right. Any other questions for Sandy, in relation to the work session topic this evening? Sandy Do you want to hear what we found out about parking? Commissioner James Yes. I would. Yes. Please. Sandy Do you want to wait until the hearing? Commissioner James Well, let's go ahead. We've got -- we're a little past our time frame, but can you do it in- Sandy I can. Commissioner James-five minutes? Sandy The Department of Land Conservation and Development did a survey of city Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements a year ago and I looked at the result of that survey that included. There were 71 cities within that that, that have parking requirements. I looked at what those ranges were. Three cities require two parking spaces for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Overall, 45 out of the 71 require more parking than what Springfield is proposing. Eight have similar to what Springfield is proposing and 18 cities have fewer parking requirements than what Springfield is proposing. For example, 13 have no parking requirements at all, and that includes Portland. I'll just speak to my own experiences of having gone on the Accessory Dwelling Unit tour in Southeast Portland. I was surprised that even though there's a tour going on, so people who are driving to these different Accessory Dwellings Unit. Every single time I was able to find on-street parking on the same block,. Which surprised me given that courtroom doesn't require any parking for an Accessory Dwelling. There are -- in terms of being incomparable to what Springfield is proposing there are some different ways that they've gotten to it. Some cities looked at the width of the street instead of looking at if there is on-street parking are abutting. Four cities looked at the width of the street and said that if the width was -- actually three, if the paved width was 28 feet then no on-street, on-site parking was required. They're looking at width rather than actual parking abutting the lot. Commissioner James You can park on either side in a situation like that. Sandy Right. A couple cities looked at the street frontage. If there was, in the case of Columbia City, 18 feet of street frontage, in the case of St. Helen's 20 feet of street frontage then no on-site parking was required. Wilsonville was somewhat similar to Springfield, so that-- City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 14 of 16 Commissioner Koivula Did you mean street width there? Sandy No. [crosstalk] Commissioner Vohs Frontage. Sandy Frontage. Commissioner Koivula Okay. Okay. Sandy Which is a little interesting. Kristina: Can I interject real quick. Sandy Yes. Kristina: It probably is because that's the standard length for a parking, on-street parking bay. We have the same 18 point reference in our other sections of our code for credits for on-street parking for commercial uses. Sandy Although, it doesn't say whether -- it's just says street frontage, so it doesn't specify if there's a driveway there or not. Which I thought was-- Commissioner James Which is kind of goofy, so you don't have a driveway. Kristina: That's probably where they got the numbers. Sandy Right. I wouldn't suggest using that because I think it's problematic that-- Commissioner James Excluding the driveway. Sandy I think that Kristina's right, but that's the origin. Commissioner James Yes. That's where it came from. Sandy In Wilsonville, they allow the on-street parking to meet the parking requirement. If it's along the frontage of the lot, or within a 100 feet of the front lot line. They also add that no more than 25% of the lots in the block will have ADU’s. Commissioner James Then you're limiting the number of ADUs in a block. Sandy That's right. Commissioner Sherwood Whoever gets to it first. Commissioner James Whoever gets to it first. Sandy Then, Anita, they have a minimum of two combined spaces for the primary dwelling in ADU, plus one if no on-street parking abuts the property. That was the most similar to what our proposal currently is. Then cities like Warrenton, Middle Point, Silverton, and Medford only require two as a combined for the primary dwelling and ADU. Then, but ours is similar in that they say no additional City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 15 of 16 parking is required for the ADU if you have your primary dwelling parking is onsite. So, if you meet the minimum for your primary dwelling then you don't have to add anything for the ADU. To summarize, the codes that were surveyed back then, majority require one onsite parking space. 18 have none or more flexible than what we're proposing. The state, in a study that was done by DEQ, DLCD, and ODOT recommend not requiring onsite parking, or if you are going to require it that you waive it if there's transit available. That is the state agencies recommendation in terms of the Accessory Dwellings. I thought it was interesting it did come up during open-house as a concern. Commissioner James Yes, I don't think people really think in terms of parking as a huge issue with ADU’s, but I think it could be. Although, you've indicated that some have not addressed it at all in their- Sandy Right. Commissioner James-code. Commissioner Vohs I think the key is, is how liberal or restrictive the parking requirements are for the primary dwelling. Then you go feed off of that to what you allowed to compensate for the primary, for the ADU. Sandy There were some other ways of addressing it. That's what I wanted to highlight, some of the approaches that these cities took as an alternative to what we have now. Commissioner James I think it'd be interesting for us to get that information that you just presented to us in a form that we can look at- Sandy Okay. [crosstalk] Commissioner James And think about a little bit. You presented that really well, but I think we need to, as my wife's great- great uncle used to say, "We need to cogitate on that a little bit." We need to think about that. Sandy Right. Commissioner James Give it some thought. I don't think we're going to be able to respond to that in this forum tonight, but I think it's good that you've done that research work and I think we need to give it some thought. Sandy Sure. Commissioner James Okay? All right. Anything else? Any other questions? We stand adjourned. [off mic conversation] [00:48:37] [END OF AUDIO] ADJOURNMENT City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 16 of 16 The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones ______________________ Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest: ____________________ Brenda Jones Management Support Specialist