Springfield TAC weighs code changes to allow more housing in mixed‑use and Climate Friendly Areas

Haley Campbell, the city’s senior planner and project manager for the Housing and Design project, presented draft zoning changes at the Technical Advisory Committee’s third meeting, arguing the amendments would remove barriers to housing supply while preserving commercial and industrial land. "We need 470 new homes every year to meet state targets," Campbell told the TAC, citing the project’s housing‑need analysis.

The package would allow standalone multi‑unit housing in more locations — notably along Main Street and the South Bay corridor — for parcels under one acre that front on local or collector streets, and would expand housing opportunities inside Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) on sites that do not front on arterials. Chelsea Hartman, a senior planner leading the CFA work, said the Booth Kelly Mixed Use District in downtown would be rezoned to a Mixed Use Employment (MUE) district and that the CFA approach aims to permit more housing "outside of the arterial."

Staff offered three ways to meet a new ground‑floor commercial expectation in mixed‑use areas: a minimum of 30% of a building’s ground‑floor area (or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less), an alternative measured by minimum street frontage, or a "commercial‑ready" option that requires ground floors to be built for future nonresidential conversion (staff showed a 12‑foot minimum interior height and separation requirements for that path). Campbell said the 30%/10,000‑sq‑ft standard is intended to reduce an existing 60% requirement that makes mixed‑use developments economically difficult in many cases.

The draft also includes density and scale changes. Campbell explained staff are proposing minimum densities where housing is allowed (examples discussed included 15 units per acre for certain standalone mixed‑use residential forms and a 20 units/net‑acre test for other categories) and a reduction in the existing step‑down/setback standard where commercial abuts residential — from 50 feet to 25 feet — to increase allowable building area. In the MUE district staff would continue to emphasize ground‑floor commercial or industrial uses and encourage housing above the ground floor; the MUE ground‑floor expectation discussed in the presentation was 60% commercial/industrial.

TAC members pressed staff on several operational questions. Developers and design professionals on the committee asked whether the commercial requirement should be measured by ground‑floor area or by street frontage, especially on narrow parcels; staff said the code currently measures ground‑floor area but agreed to study frontage‑based metrics as a possible alternative. Several participants raised concerns about new housing next to long‑standing industrial uses; staff proposed added setbacks, screening and reduced heights as mitigation but members questioned whether those measures would address noise and odor complaints or merely discourage building at all.

Members also debated how to handle automobile‑oriented businesses in downtown and CFAs. Hartman told the TAC that the proposal would continue to prohibit new automobile‑oriented or automobile‑dependent retail in most CFA areas while allowing existing auto uses to remain or expand under some standards. Participants suggested regulating compatibility through design and site standards or conditional/discretionary review rather than blanket prohibitions, noting small, specialized auto‑related businesses can sometimes fit a downtown pattern with the right access and design.

On the commercial‑ready option, members said the 12‑foot height and structural separation requirements could make projects financially infeasible for some developers and might reduce take‑up; others supported retaining the option as added flexibility in constrained sites where conversion to commercial in the future is likely. No formal votes or motions were taken at the meeting; staff said they will present policy questions about square footage vs frontage vs commercial‑ready options to City Council and Planning Commission in December and expect to return to TAC in early 2026 with revisions.

The TAC meeting focused on policy tradeoffs: increase housing capacity while protecting employment land, retain pedestrian‑oriented ground‑floor activity without making mixed‑use projects unworkable, and balance flexibility for small‑scale businesses with long‑term placemaking goals. Staff will incorporate feedback and bring a refined code package to the public hearings later this year and to TAC again when a draft ordinance is ready.