Planning Commission reviews housing-design code concepts to boost Main Street housing

Springfield planners on Sept. 16 presented a set of proposed code and plan concepts aimed at making it easier to build more housing in commercial and mixed‑use districts, with particular focus on the Main Street corridor and the Glenwood riverfront area.

The presentation, led by Haley Campbell, senior planner for the City of Springfield, and Sandy Belson, comprehensive planning manager, and supported by consultants from Cascadia Partners, described four broad recommendations: expand opportunities for housing in commercial districts; reduce barriers to housing in mixed‑use districts; recalibrate development standards (density, height, lot coverage); and streamline and simplify the development code. Commissioners discussed options for allowing standalone or mixed‑use housing on Main Street, permitting mixed‑use in neighborhood commercial zones, and changes to specific development standards.

Why it matters: City staff said Springfield needs roughly 470 new homes per year to meet state targets and that many households are cost‑burdened (staff cited about 44% of renters and 24% of homeowners spending more than 30% of income on housing). The proposal aims to increase housing supply near jobs and services without wholesale land‑use changes, while balancing the city’s employment land supply.

Key proposals and discussion points

- Main Street housing (Concept 2.1): Staff presented three alternatives ranging from the most flexible (Alternative A — allow standalone or mixed‑use housing on arterial Main Street sites under 1 acre) to the most limiting (Alternative C — allow housing only at specified mixed‑use centers). Commissioners generally favored increased flexibility along Main Street but raised questions about preserving commercial opportunities, appropriate density, and where standalone housing would be appropriate. Haley Campbell said commercial uses would still be allowed and that properties over 1 acre would generally remain commercial unless otherwise specified.

- Neighborhood commercial districts (Concept 2.2): Staff proposed permitting mixed‑use buildings (housing above or behind small commercial uses) in neighborhood commercial zones while not allowing standalone residential there. Several commissioners said they supported allowing mixed‑use in neighborhood commercial areas but asked staff to consider restrictions or guidance about allowable ground‑floor commercial uses.

- Development standards to make mixed‑use feasible (Recommendation 3): Cascadia Partners outlined three tools to improve feasibility: reduce the required share of ground‑floor space that must be commercial; explicitly allow horizontal mixed‑use (separate commercial and residential buildings on one site) in addition to vertical mixed‑use; and require “commercial ready” ground floors that can function as either commercial or residential initially while remaining convertible. Commissioners expressed support for measures that reduce the risk of large, hard‑to‑fill commercial ground‑floor spaces while retaining the option for commercial uses.

- Density, height, lot coverage, and step‑down rules: Staff proposed applying minimum density standards across commercial and mixed‑use districts (recommended range: roughly 15–20 units per gross acre) to ensure efficient land use. They proposed tightening the height step‑down trigger so it applies within 25 feet (instead of 50 feet) of low‑density residential zones to reduce its impact on development feasibility. For neighborhood commercial (NC) districts, staff recommended increasing the current 20‑foot maximum to about 45–50 feet to allow economically viable 3–4 story mixed‑use prototypes. Staff also proposed raising maximum lot coverage from current 35–45% to a 50–75% range to better support higher density development. Commissioners asked about parking implications; staff said parking minimums have been removed under state rules and developers will decide how much parking to provide.

- Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) and walkable design standards: Sandy Belson explained the state’s Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) requirements and the plan to designate the Glenwood riverfront as a primary CFA, with downtown/Mohawk as secondary CFAs. Commissioners supported adding CFEC‑aligned design standards — for example, prohibiting parking between building and street and orienting main entries to the street — and many said they favored additional pedestrian‑oriented standards such as minimum façade transparency and weather protection.

Concerns and clarifications raised by commissioners

Commissioners repeatedly asked staff to clarify density definitions (what “standalone housing” means in this context — staff said it refers to multifamily housing types rather than detached single‑family lots), where minimum and maximum density thresholds would apply, and how to preserve commercial and employment land while allowing housing. Several commissioners emphasized the importance of transit, bike and pedestrian access if housing is added to Main Street. A few asked for clearer language around ground‑floor uses (commercial‑ready standards) and for careful, limited design standards that are administrable.

Timeline and next steps

Staff said the public survey is open through Sept. 30 and that code and plan amendment drafting would begin in October, with another round of outreach and a draft code coming back to the Planning Commission in December. Staff said they expect to begin the formal adoption process in 2026 and aim to complete it by midyear.

Ending note

Commissioners generally expressed support for the package of concepts, with several favoring the more flexible alternatives for Main Street paired with minimum density and design measures to protect commercial opportunities and encourage walkable development. Staff said they will return with draft code amendments and additional outreach results for further commission feedback.