Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews broad housing and mixed‑use code changes; Booth Kelly, density and industrial compatibility draw debate
Summary
Staff presented code amendments to expand mixed‑use housing along Main Street, permit mixed‑use in neighborhood commercial areas, and reconfigure Booth Kelly into a mixed‑use employment district; council raised concerns about adjacency to industrial parcels, discretionary permits for heavy manufacturing, and minimum density standards.
Springfield staff and outside consultants outlined a multi‑part proposal to change development code and map designations to allow more housing in mixed‑use settings and to refine rules in climate‑friendly overlay areas.
Jamon Kimall of Cascadia Partners summarized four project objectives: allow housing paired with commercial uses in more places, provide flexibility for commercial sizing and siting within mixed‑use projects, permit standalone residential development in select commercial districts, and encourage higher densities on sites where housing is allowed. "The first one is to allow housing in a mixed use development in more locations," Kimall told council.
Staff recommended allowing mixed‑use development along much of the Main Street/South A corridor on sites under one acre while reserving larger sites for employment uses. Haley (staff) said mapping and a parcel list were provided in the packet and noted about 23 potentially affected industrial parcels in a segment near 28th Street; several council members asked for more analysis of how close housing would be permitted to existing industrial uses.
On Booth Kelly and related districts, staff proposed a new 'Mixed Use Employment' district that would encourage commercial or industrial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above (a 60% ground‑floor commercial/industrial threshold was suggested). Staff also proposed that heavy manufacturing and production uses could require discretionary review to allow specific conditions for compatibility. Councilors split on that requirement: some argued discretionary review would allow mitigation for problematic uses, while others said adding discretionary permits would deter industrial investment. Councilor Rodley said he was opposed to adding discretionary use requirements that could make operations harder for existing businesses.
Councilors also debated density and housing form in mixed‑use residential districts. Staff proposed a minimum of 20 units per net acre (implying maximum lot sizes near 2,178 square feet), which led to questions about whether detached single‑unit dwellings would be feasible or whether 'vertical' townhome configurations should be treated differently.
Chelsea Hartman briefed council on the Climate Friendly Areas overlay for downtown and Mohawk and asked whether the city should prohibit or limit new auto‑oriented or auto‑dependent uses in the CFA. Council requested more specificity — listing particular uses versus broad prohibitions — and asked staff to return with refined approaches and guardrails.
Staff will return with more detailed drafts, mapping clarifications around industrial adjacency, and recommended standards for any discretionary reviews.
