Springfield staff advance code concepts to add housing in commercial and mixed-use districts

Haley (planning staff) opened the Technical Advisory Committee meeting by presenting code concepts to allow more housing in Springfield’s commercial and mixed‑use districts, including options for Main Street and designated climate friendly areas.

Haley said the city’s code and plan audit found “too few homes are being built and that we need roughly 470 new homes every year to meet the targets set by the state.” She told the committee the audit identified three main barriers: housing is generally not allowed as a standalone use in most commercial districts; mixed‑use development is often economically infeasible; and some development standards (height, setbacks, lot coverage, design rules) need adjustment.

The presentation described two topics the committee would address that evening: (1) expanding opportunities for housing in commercial districts, and (2) reducing barriers to mixed‑use development. Sandy Balson, a consultant on the project, summarized the Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) framework: a primary CFA in the Glenwood riverfront area (already allowing high densities, including up to 50 dwelling units per acre in existing rules) and two secondary CFAs (Downtown and Mohawk) with lower minimum densities (proposed 15 net dwelling units per acre in secondary areas).

Staff presented three alternatives for Main Street: a most‑flexible option allowing standalone or mixed housing on parcels under one acre; a mid‑range option allowing more housing in identified mixed‑use stretches (for example between 42nd/48th and 14th/23rd); and a restrictive option limiting new housing to key intersections identified in the Main Street Corridor vision. Haley said the one‑acre threshold is designed to protect the city’s commercial and industrial buildable land inventory while creating additional housing capacity on smaller parcels that staff say are in surplus.

The committee discussed practical hurdles developers face. Phil and other participants noted lenders view ground‑floor commercial as high risk and that vertical mixed‑use (commercial below, residential above) is expensive because of building code and financing challenges. Committee members and consultants suggested options to improve feasibility: reduce ground‑floor commercial minimums (for example setting a range such as 25–50% of ground‑floor area or a cap in square feet), allow horizontal mixed‑use (separate commercial and residential buildings on the same site), and permit “commercial‑ready” ground floors that can be used as housing temporarily but are built to a standard that accommodates future retail or office.

Several attendees urged the city to prioritize nimble, market‑responsive rules and to coordinate with property owners and business owners on Main Street. Haley said staff will engage businesses and that the proposal is intended as an incentive—property owners can opt in or continue existing commercial uses.

On data and constraints, Christina (city attorney) and Haley explained state requirements. Haley said Springfield must rely on its adopted commercial/industrial buildable lands inventory to ensure it does not create a deficit under statewide planning rules (statewide planning Goal 2). Committee discussion acknowledged that the inventory’s land‑supply data is older (work beginning in 2008 and subsequent UGB expansions) and that staff lack resources in this project to fully update the inventory; updating residential inventories is scheduled to begin in 2026 under new state rules. Staff reported the inventory shows a large surplus of smaller commercial/industrial parcels (staff cited hundreds of small sites under one acre) but deficits at larger sizes (5+ acres) that motivated previous UGB expansions.

Haley closed by asking for feedback and said staff will publish a public survey in the coming week, present a code and plan concepts report to the Planning Commission and City Council in September, and schedule another TAC meeting tentatively for September. She emphasized outreach to business owners on Main Street and noted this project is being coordinated with the state Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities work.

Ending: Staff did not present final code amendments or take formal votes at the meeting. Instead the committee provided feedback on preferred levels of flexibility, feasibility measures (horizontal mixed‑use, reduced ground‑floor commercial requirements, commercial‑ready floors) and on targeting Main Street and designated CFAs as priority areas for code changes.