Springfield City Council — September 22, 2025

0:05 I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Here, Mayor Gordon. >> Here. >> Councilor Weber. >> Here. >> Councilor Mow. >> Here. >> Councilor Roddy. >> Here. >> Councilor Blackwel. >> Here. >> And Councilor Stout. >> Here, thank you. >> All right, we have two items this evening. The first one is the Springfield Police Advisory Committee City Council update with Tiffany Monroe, and I'm assuming Eric Adams is here for this item as well. >> Good evening. I'm Tiffany Monroe, the staff liaison to the Springfield Police Advisory Committee. I have our chair of our committee, Eric Adams, to present a SPAC update. >> Thank you, Tiffany. Uh Mayor, Council, thank you this evening. Happy to present our report for 2024,

0:50 which seems now quite a while ago, but here we are. Um over the course of the year, uh as noted in the report in your packet, uh we were able to review 12 different policies that were presented to us by staff, uh and provide feedback and input on those just to ensure clarity and consistency, uh answer any questions that the community may have during those meetings. Uh overall, I would say over the course of the year, uh business from the public was pretty minimal, and um so for the most part, other than reviewing policies, we were very appreciative to learn about the police department's involvement in a variety of different community events over the course of the year, um including securing grants to support equipment purchases and targeted

1:36 enforcement operations, particularly around retail theft, that uh ended up becoming quite successful, as I'm sure you will know. Uh continued participation within uh community events such as the National Night Out, K9 competition, and the Olympic Race Trial uh Trials Race Walk, of which several of us volunteered as well. Uh promotions from nine different department staff members and then always the highlight for the committee is uh our invitation and attendance to the annual awards ceremony for the department at which we get to hear about the tremendous work that SPD is doing within the community. Also, I'd like to highlight uh our appreciation of uh Terry Dillon and her term as chair for the committee and as

2:21 well as her continuing service on the committee as as we go forward. Uh during 2024, we also uh said goodbye to our council long-term council liaison Joe Pishioneri who served in that role from 2017 to 2024 and welcomed counselor Webber to to that position, so uh grateful to have her on the committee. Uh and then certainly last but not least, uh Chief Shearer and and his work within the department um making sure that we achieved accreditation uh and we're able to increase staffing across the department uh to uh replenish uh the force and and get us to the level of service that I think is expected by city council and in the community, so um

3:06 other than then that, uh just would like to highlight that for this coming year, our current year, uh we continue to focus on community outreach efforts that the community can be involved in. Uh that could include uh increased presence at National Night Out, perhaps Springfield Block Party as that event continues to grow and expand. Uh but we're also looking for other opportunities that council may feel would be relevant for the committee to engage in. Um at the moment, uh we do have a full committee, although we are aware that there are three positions that will be outgoing, uh all three of which are the at-large members, and Tiffany tells me applications are in hand for those and will be reviewed by council on October 27th. That's our report. >> Thank you.

3:51 Uh are there any questions or comments? Well, thank you for coming and giving giving giving this update. I I thought the block party, I'm sorry, I thought National Night Out at Willamette Lane, that was a great location. It was it exceeded my expectations as far as the space and the ability to bring community partners. Um, I really appreciate the Willamette Lane's partnership in that. >> We we had a great time. We look forward to hosting you again next year. >> All right. Counselor Roddy. >> Thank you. Not to go after the mayor, but I thought other people would have things to say. Thank you very much for this and thank you to the um, the neighbors and residents who serve on this committee. Um, I found it really

4:37 interesting that you said there hadn't been a lot of public interaction in the last year cuz I know when I was paying attention a couple years ago there was a lot. So, it comes and it goes. So, I just and I really appreciate the detailed report and and it is it's wonderful that we've come out of COVID and we can do these public events cuz we definitely felt it as a city when we couldn't and when um, the police department was in transition and wasn't able to connect with the community. And so, all of those efforts I think are really paying off. And I just want to call out the the work to reduce retail theft. I remember it feels like it was just a couple of months ago, but it was a while ago that the folks from Jerry's and other folks came and shared that with us and the fact that we just jumped in and and dug into how we could help our businesses and diminish the the

5:24 theft that was happening. I think is really important. So, thanks for being on top of that. And just thank you for the for the volunteer work that you all do. All right. Anybody else? All right. Thank you for the update. We appreciate it. Thank you. All right. The next item is the Housing and Design Initiative Code Code and Plan Update with Haley Campbell.

6:24 >> Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um Haley Campbell, senior planner um with the city. Tonight's uh is a presentation on the results of the Code and Plan Concepts Report. Um I'll be presenting as well as our consultant Cascadia Partners who are here tonight. They'll um present a little later in the in the presentation. Um and there are several recommendations that we'll be looking for Council's recommendation on. Four in particular are important. Um if you're taking notes, it's concept 2.1 and 2. 2, and that's to increase housing options in our commercial areas. Concept 4.2 to determine what, if any, C-FEC walkable design standards we could choose to implement. And then concept 4.4 to replace the Booth Kelly mixed-use and the mixed-use,

7:10 light medium industrial, and community commercial districts with the mixed-use employment district. We have 50 minutes tonight. There's a lot of things that we're going to try to cover. Um we may skip over some of the slides, and if we have time at the end, we'll come back to them if there are questions. Those slides that we'll skip over are slides that we don't need to have your recommendation or feedback on. Okay. Um so for the agenda tonight, uh we have 3 minutes for the background, 45 minutes to go over the proposed Code and Plan Concepts, and then 2 minutes for next steps and adjourn. So, for the background and code audit findings. Springfield is growing, yet we don't have enough housing that people can afford.

7:56 To address this, the city is planning for what's needed to support growth. Our housing strategy found that too few homes are being built, and that we need 470 new homes every year to meet targets set by the state. We've also found that many households struggle to afford housing with 44% of renters and 24% of homeowners spending more than 30% of their income on housing. So, through this project, we hope to update our development code to make it easier to build needed housing in our commercial and mixed-use districts, while balancing these community priorities that you can see on the screen. You may recall that back in May, I came to you with a review of the code audit completed by our consultant Cascadia

8:41 Partners. In it, they found that housing as a stand-alone use is generally not allowed in most mixed-use or commercial districts. That where mixed-use development is allowed, it is often economically infeasible to build. That most development standards would allow for higher density housing, but adjustments are needed to the development code to allow additional height, setbacks, or lot coverage. And they found that design standards and regulations for how Springfield uses its land in the mixed-use districts could be simpler and more streamlined. Remember that many of these mixed-use district code sections haven't been updated in many years. So, that's why we're getting to them now.

9:28 As far as where we're at in the project timeline, we've completed the code audit in May, which I came to you with the results of. Uh, we've now completed the code and plan concepts over the summer. We met with our governance committee in July, which included two city councilors here tonight, um and two planning commissioners. Uh we took the results or some of the results to our technical advisory committee in August and conducted a series of outreach events. You might have caught me at the Springfield City Club in August, at the National Night Out, the Springfield Public Library Cultural Days, and the Springfield Block Party in August and in September. Our survey uh to receive the public's feedback is also live on our website. It went live on August 26th and it's live until next Tuesday, September 30th.

10:14 In October and November, we'll begin another round of engagement with workshops and or listening sessions with the public and business owners impacted by these potential code amendments. I'll bring a draft of the code amendments to the planning commission in December, an initial draft for their feedback and questions. All this to say we'll begin the adoption process in 2026. The following are some ideas for new housing in the commercial and mixed-use districts. We'll begin by asking the council a few times to consider how we should balance our commercial and housing needs while reflecting the communities priorities. So, in particular in your packet tonight, which was rather thick with the report that's about 50 pages, um there

10:59 were four recommendations in particular. The first was to expand opportunities for housing in our commercial districts. The second was to reduce barriers to housing in our mixed-use districts. The third was to recalibrate development standards to align with our housing goals. And the fourth was to streamline and simplify the code. So, you may be asking, why are we considering allowing more housing in the commercial and mixed-use districts? These areas are already planned for shops, businesses, and a mix of uses. That's why they're our mixed-use districts. Some of these areas already even have housing as part of an existing mixed use building or stand-alone housing development. If you've driven down Main Street, you've probably seen some of these types of buildings.

11:44 That makes them logical places to consider adding more housing near existing jobs and services without major changes to how Springfield uses its land. This is one of my favorite graphics because it shows the continuum of housing in Springfield. On the left, existing residential districts are the most flexible by allowing stand-alone housing on all sites. You could consider this like your R1, R2, and R3, low-density residential, medium-density residential, and high-density residential. On the right, you have our existing commercial and industrial districts. These are more restricted by generally not allowing housing. There are some exceptions to this, and we'll get into it further along in the presentation. Where does that leave us the opportunity and flexibility to allow more housing?

12:31 In the middle, you can see our mixed-use residential, commercial, and employment districts, our Glenwood mixed-use districts, and our Booth-Kelly mixed-use district in downtown. So, what does this look like for this project in particular? We're looking at allowing housing in the community commercial districts, uh mixed-use development in the neighborhood commercial district, and making mixed-use development more feasible, um and all that falls within that medium section or that middle section between more flexible to more restrictive, right in the middle, which is where you want to be to allow that flexibility for housing. I'm actually going to skip over the um climate-friendly areas section. That's

13:16 recommendation one. Um one of our other senior planners had already brought you this information, and it is in our packet, um just because we're not asking for feedback on that tonight. Um it's not part of this project in particular. But if we do have questions, um, Sandy Belson, our comprehensive planning manager, and we have time at the end can address any of those. So, why are we focusing on the Main Street corridor in particular? So, this is recommendation two and concept 2.1. Um, the first is that housing is already permitted in some specific areas like our mixed-use designated areas. There's previous plans and concepts that establish a desire for more housing in certain areas along Main Street like our Main Street corridor vision plan, which

14:02 you're seeing the graphic on the screen. There is more of an opportunity for development along Main Street, especially for vacant and redevelopable parcels in our commercial areas. However, we also have to take into consideration how allowing housing in multiple commercial districts throughout the city could put pressure on our employment land. So, the first concept for 2.1, we would allow housing on Main Street on sites that meet certain criteria. This option is the most flexible. So, we talked about that continuum of more flexible to more restrictive when it comes to housing. Housing would be allowed as a standalone or mixed-use as long as it is on property that is under 1 acre. Commercial uses would still be allowed.

14:48 Anything over 1 acre, commercial would be required. So, it's that site size limit. This works because we already allow existing standalone and mixed-use housing in certain areas along Main Street. So, the East Main refinement plan is a mixed-use area where we already allow housing. You can see it kind of in that blue section between 42nd and 54th, that area in particular. This option also would preserve employment land by limiting new housing to certain areas and site sizes. Our commercial and industrial buildable lands inventory found that overall we have a surplus of commercial and mixed-use properties under an acre. >> All right, I think we have our first question, Council Rodney. >> I'll try to be quick cuz I don't want to slow you down cuz you got some momentum.

15:34 On the over 1 acre, the commercial required is that exclusively commercial or could that be mixed-use? >> So, I think it makes it a little complicated because again, we don't want to impact our buildable lands inventory. So, again, like right now we don't place that site size limit in the mixed-use area that you're seeing between 42nd and 54th. So, we'd have to make sure that we weren't impacting any employment lands in the areas that aren't currently mixed-use. We do potentially have some options to look at that, but we'd have to look at our employment needs first before we could say yes or no.

16:24 Um so, the next concept would allow more housing in certain mixed-use areas. These areas are either exist existing mixed-use as shown in the East Main Refinement Plan. So, again, we talked about that between 42nd and 54th. Um or conceptual mixed-use areas as shown in the Main Street Corridor Vision Plan. And this area in particular is between 14th and 23rd. Inside these areas, we would allow standalone or mixed-use housing and commercial. Outside these areas, commercial would continue to be required. So, certain areas, certain blocks along Main Street, not all of Main Street. Doesn't matter site size, just in those areas. And then the last concept would allow more housing in mixed-use centers. So, what I mean by this? Um mixed-use

17:09 centers would expand standalone or mixed-use housing to key intersections along Main Street. Our Main Street Corridor Vision Plan identified 21st Street, 30th Street, and 42nd Street. So, you're kind of seeing those on the map on the screen. Again, commercial areas at these intersections could allow standalone or mixed-use housing and commercial. Areas outside of these centers would still require commercial development. One thing to consider with these proposals is um along Main Street at these areas are locations where we can imagine more housing. Some of these areas may already be developed, so we recently had um a new development come in across the from 32nd. Um I believe it's a car wash and a coffee shop. So, that area just recently

17:56 developed as opposed to being vacant. Can we imagine more housing at that location or not? Um and again, it's going to be based off of developer preferences. This is an option for the property owner if they want to move forward with this proposal or not. The next concept 2.2 would allow mixed-use development in the neighborhood commercial district. As you can see on the map, the district is spread out throughout the city, and its purpose is to provide opportunities for sites um that meet your day-to-day commercial needs like your neighborhood convenience store, a coffee shop, or a small business. Again, this would look like housing above or behind an existing commercial development. This So, this is a mix of uses. Commercial on the ground

18:41 floor, residential above, or commercial in front and residential behind. A mix of uses on a site. It would not allow housing standalone housing development because we don't want to take away the primary use of the site, which is a commercial use. It's just allowing more uses. Okay, on to the discussion questions. So, for Main Street, which if any alternative do you support for allowing housing on Main Street? Do you think the development code should be more flexible than today with regards to housing? In the neighborhood commercial district, do you support the proposed change to allow mixed-use buildings in the neighborhood commercial district? Do you have any concerns about that change? >> Uh Council Blackwell. >> Thank you. Uh this is the second time

19:27 actually I've gotten to hear this and I appreciate it. Uh once I dug in the first time after our initial meeting, I still feel very strongly uh that being the most flexible is the right answer here. I feel like our code is a little dated for what is maybe needed in the commercial. We have a surplus as you said and we don't have a surplus of housing. We actually have a housing need and not only that, a mandate to to keep up with a certain number of homes. And I think allowing uh the builders owners the flexibility uh to start a project like that or have a project that could fit in some of these um areas would be really beneficial. So, I'm more on the alternative A, I guess. Um for the first one and I also um like the idea of the the mixed-use housing in the neighborhood commercial because I can

20:12 see a little grocery store or somebody wanted to add a second story if they had the funds to do so and put some apartments up there or something behind. Just makes sense for infill housing. So, thank you. >> Councilor Roddy. >> Thank you. Um I really appreciate what Councilor Blackwell said about the flexibility. And this is probably outside the scope of this particular project, but there might be people in the room that will hear me and say, "Yes, we know this is a thing." Um with all of this flexibility, which I think is great, and envisioning how do we use that surplus land? I have where it says, "Do you have concerns?" My concerns are really around infrastructure. Like I'm really concerned about if we have um what we need in terms of the roads and

20:57 if we're the the stress that um the mixed-use will put on like the the fiber and the electric and the water and all of that stuff. So, I'm just hoping that we're thinking about that. I'm looking at Jeff at the back of the room. Um because we haven't solved that yet, and while it seems like a great place to do the development and to spread it out across our narrow city, I just I just have big concerns about going hand-in-hand with the infrastructure. >> Thanks. >> All right. Anybody else? Oh, Councilwoman Blackwell. >> That's a great point, actually. And one concern I do have, and I I know you mentioned that you're going to be reaching out to the business community at a later date and have haven't done

21:42 that yet, but that I'm real curious as to what they think about it and what, you know, what their thoughts are on having potentially, you know, more people in their area. And is it a good thing? Are you bringing more business to, you know, in or do they look at it as like congestion and like a negative? So, I'm curious about that. >> Um so, I think the one question that I had was how should we think, I guess, along the Main Street corridor? How should we think about its adjacency to the industrial lands? And what kind of discussion around, I guess, environmental impacts was did you guys have? >> I think that's something we're newly looking into. We do have some more information about the Booth Kelly mixed use further

22:27 along in the presentation, and I do think that is something that we are definitely having to contend with now if we could have like a live-work situation in close proximity to industrial. Um because the Booth Kelly mixed use district actually does allow housing in that district. And as we know, Booth Kelly is generally an industrial commercial main use in that area. So, absolutely, I do think that is something that we would like council's feedback on of if they even want housing in areas that are primarily commercial or industrial use, and what kind of protections we could provide. >> I think my just uh my initial reaction based on the map is as you kind of go up into that couplet area, especially where the op shack is and um and sub is down there, right? Like I've got serious concerns about that area all

23:14 the way through to where the Rose Bro mill is. You know, if you look at that intersection, you know, you've got a battery place and a mill and a tire you know, all great businesses, right? But I have a hard time seeing, you know, us trying to bring a lot of a lot of housing in that area. But then when you get further east, right? Where Main Street natural like the density like there's a lot of open fields out there when you get out towards 52nd and and out there and I think that it makes a lot more sense, but I think that that working that really back manufacturing backbone of the city, you know, if if we can do some initial some additional work around that question about sort of environmental impact if these two things go together. Okay, Council Stone.

23:59 >> Uh a couple of things. Um I'm always going to champion neighborhood commercial districts. I love them uh dearly. Um on the Main Street thing, uh the it's there's just such an abundance of caution that I have with respect to Main Street because if you ask one business owner how fast should the traffic go on Main Street, some will say 15 mph. You ask the next one, they'll say 55 mph. And that ultimately turns this whole thing into a strode. It means where cars are going too fast to be safe for pedestrians and also too slow to be terribly productive for industry or anything else. I just really want whenever we're looking at filling in for um neighborhoods, I really think it's not about you know, it's maybe our proximity to Main Street doesn't bother me so much, but do they have access

24:45 through another way? Is there a back access uh you know, something behind the Main Street where they can actually come in and out of Main Street so that they're not immediately attached to the road? Unless we're talking about an area where we're talking 15 miles an hour. That's a very different discussion. So, I just I really want to be sensitive to the fact that there's a lot of different uses and a lot of different um concerns we have about the speed on Main Street and that council really needs to in it it needs to be council's decision how fast the cars go in which parts of the areas on Main Street. Um one other thing is that uh I spent a lot of time on South 28th Street. Um I love that part of town and there's also a number there are well, there also are

25:30 number of buildable lands in the past, you know, some old auto parts recycling yards that are, you know, went out of business and that sort of thing. I'm like, well, hey, there's there's 10 acres of buildable land that's immediately adjacent to a bike path, very easy to access to Main Street, and yet you're not compromising what you have currently. I just I I would just pepper that in along with this discussion because yeah, those industrial corridors are crucial and the roads do get up quite a bit there. It's not uh it's currently not super safe. It's on the purple level of our our our road uh inventory for renovation. So, that's all. Thanks. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Did you get enough clear direction? You're getting some head nods and I want to make sure we're

26:15 >> I think it would help me if uh maybe running down the line I think I only heard from uh counselor Blackwell they were in favor of alternative A, which was to allow them um under an acre. So, it might help me to hear from the rest of the counselors if if they have a specific preference to what type of housing they would want. If they want it under an acre, only in the mixed-use areas, or at the mixed-use intersections, or if they have no preference. >> I think I'm I'm okay with alternative A and getting some additional feedback um specifically from around those industrial areas from the Main Street uh from the Main Street group. I know you guys that scheduled. Anybody else? Go. Okay. >> Thank you. That answers my question.

27:05 Um so, I'm going to turn it over to Cascadia Partners who will take it from here on a few concepts. >> Yeah. Hi. Good excuse me. Good evening. Um uh Mayor and Councilors, good to be with you here tonight. My name is Jim and Kimmel. I'm a partner with Cascadia Partners and one of the main consultants working on this project. So, one of the main authors of that long report you had to read tonight and hopefully we can summarize it in a few minutes here and um get some input. So, um we're turning now to the question of um where um the city does continue to require that housing be part of a mixed-use development. Um so, that's the concept that's put forth for the neighborhood commercial district uh and in some places in the other mixed-use districts in the city, um the uh proposal would be to continue

27:51 to require that a housing development be part of a mixed-use uh building or development. And so, in those instances uh where that is required in the code, there are still some tweaks we can make so that mixed-use development is more economically feasible than it is today. And so, I'm going to go over three different concepts for how the code could be modified to do that. Um the background for this is mixed-use develop- development is generally uh more complex, uh more expensive to build. Uh it's viewed as more risky by many residential developers, um mainly because of the softer demand for new commercial space. And so, what we're trying to do here is see if we can make it a little bit

28:37 easier and more financially uh viable to build these projects while continuing to meet the goal of having sort of mixed-use development pattern in in those places where uh the code requires it. You can go and go to the next slide. So, the first concept is to is fairly straightforward and that is to actually reduce the amount of the ground floor of a building that must be dedicated to a commercial use. And so, these kinds of regulations are in the code today. They generally range from something like 40 or 60 or 70% of that ground floor of the building must be a commercial space. The other parts can be used for residential dwelling units or amenity spaces,

29:23 but there's that minimal amount that must be commercial. If that amount is too high for any particular development project, it that can be a really a big challenge. Um, a lot of space to fill. The construction costs will be higher if a big portion of that ground floor needs to be commercial. And so, what we're looking at here would be to tighten that up basically across those commercial zones to make sure that it still allows for or requires some commercial space on the ground floor, but not too much commercial space where that might tip the scales and developers seeing that to be too risky or not viable. Go to the next slide. So, the next concept here would be to clarify that

30:08 various forms of mixed use development are permitted. So, the code is pretty clear in most cases that a vertical mixed use building could be built. So, what you most often see with commercial on the ground floor and residential above in the graphic on the left. It is less clear about whether a horizontal mixed use development would be permitted. And so, this is an example where the commercial space is actually an entirely separate building separate from the residential. Usually, the commercial would be in in the front facing the street. Um there's some advantages to this on a deeper site where you have a little more space. Uh this can allow for those commercial and residential to be in separate buildings, can simplify some of

30:53 the construction uh methods used versus uh having two uses in the same building. Um and just generally provides a little more flexibility while still achieving the uh overall sort of policy goal here, which is to have mixed-use development. Uh and so this change would would allow for um that horizontal format to be allowed. And go on to the next slide. And the third change goes a a bit step further than the first two. And so um what this would do is to allow for a building to be designed so that that ground floor space is could be used by a commercial uh by a business or other commercial use,

31:38 but not necessarily require that that be used as a commercial space at the initial time of development. And what the sort of term of art here is a commercial-ready design. Uh and so these are things like some of the building code uh requirements, making sure the ground floor is tall enough where it could be viable for a variety of different commercial spaces. Um but if the developer doesn't see a strong market for a commercial use in that ground floor, we could allow that to be used as a dwelling, assuming it meets all the building code requirements for a dwelling. Uh and um have uh apartments or other you know, live-work kind of spaces uh on the ground floor of the building.

32:24 Uh the advantage to this approach is it offers the most flexibility so that that ground floor could still be used uh for residential if that's where the market is strongest, but then also could be converted to a commercial use at some point in the future because it already has some of the features and the construction is designed for that. And so the the disadvantage to this is it doesn't guarantee that there is a commercial use on the site. But it does offer that greater level of flexibility where it could be converted in the future and kind of allows the market to respond as it as it might change over time. Can go to the next slide. I think Haley, did you want to pause here for

33:10 for discussion questions? >> Yes, thank you, German. Um so we have two questions about these concepts that we just discussed. In your opinion, would these allowances make mixed-use development more feasible? And then what should we keep in mind as we incorporate these approaches into the code? >> I can start, Councilwoman >> So as far as the first one, reducing the ground floor commercial requirement, I I am in support of that. That's something I've had multiple developers over the years talk to me about. It doesn't seem to pencil and especially with the need right now with the world that we're in with the commercial space. So that makes a lot of sense to me. The third one I struggle with. Like I feel like if money isn't an option and you could wave a wand and oh yeah, make a commercial on the ground floor for later, but it it seems like requiring

33:56 that is just another way of restricting development and also I would I would be interested in what cost difference that would be. >> Thanks, Councilwoman >> Thank you. I think the Councilwoman and I are kind of aligned tonight. I really appreciate the focus on how how do we take away some of these restrictions. The allowing horizontal I think is really interesting to you know, maybe have like a cluster that's got a mix of business and and housing. The third one I also one of my concerns around it is just how do you it kind of goes back to that sort of infrastructure piece, right? So, how do you if it's allowed to if it's if it's commercial ready, I think is the term that you used. Um, but it could be

34:43 used for housing. I'm just I'm just curious about how what that looks like in terms of development and whether that's actually people are going to be like, yes, I want to do that because it's an option or similar to what Councillor Blackwood was saying around like, uh, it's I'm a little bit confused by it. So, I'm not against it. I'm just like Hmm. Um, I'm not sure as sure about that, but I do really like the other two and and it's not going to be a hill I die on. >> Uh, Councillor Webber. >> Um, I kind of agree on that point of this third one is a little bit of a struggle for me to wrap my head around um, how just how that would work in the long term. Um, the first two options I do like. Either one of those I would I would be

35:28 fine with either one of those. >> If if that was in place, would existing mixed-use commercial be able to convert to residential on the main floor? >> So, I think it's going to depend on the area. Um, absolutely. I think in some of the in this mixed-use area in particular where we're looking down Main Street. Um, and it you know, I think we'd take into account if it was under an acre, are we not taking away that employment need? Um, we didn't go into the climate-friendly areas, but um, the climate-friendly areas one of the proposals is to maintain or require ground-floor commercial on certain streets through downtown to preserve

36:14 that commercial um, storefront. So, uh, I think it's going to depend on the area and the employment need that we have. >> Um, could you go back to that I guess that point, is how do we balance uh, uh clearly the market does not support that much commercial with the fact that like good design standards are saying that every building should have a have a commercial storefront in it? >> Yeah. Maybe do one thing. I'm actually going to go back to um the climate-friendly areas cuz we didn't talk about it, but I do think that it is important for this discussion. So, for um downtown, um what we are proposing in the climate-friendly areas is to acquire

37:00 ground floor commercial on the arterial streets. Um so, that's Main Street, Pioneer Parkway, South A. And then the other streets we would allow the standalone residential. Um so, that is trying to concentrate your commercial into certain areas to make a more viable commercial like we have in um on Main Street downtown. Um rather than being dispersed. So, being strategic about, "Okay, this is definitely where we want the commercial, but then we'll be more permissive other places." Um so, I think that's what Haley's wanting us to think about, but you know, when you're extending that out all along Main Street, are there certain areas where we really want to have that commercial or it's not going to work

37:45 like you were saying, Mayor, um in proximity, but then others it is. So, it's it's a challenge. >> Yeah, and I think that's one of the the big things I keep thinking about with all the housing work that we've been doing, right? Like as we've talked about flexibility, right? Like that and that some of it doesn't necessarily lead to a better affordability from a construction price point, and I'm trying to figure out how to balance those two things. I think the I think the horizontal uh mixed uses like very reasonable, very very useful, and especially with how deep some of those lots are in Main Street, that could be a very easy way to balance out a whole an entire development. I think I share some of the same concerns with other folks going commercial ready

38:31 ready ground floor seems very much like we're going to just push cost into it without necessarily, you know, thinking about uh uh conversion over the long term. Um the other question that I think I have is in this scenario have we evaluated what counts as it counts as commercial so that the the example I keep thinking about is that a developer in town brings is a lot that's across the street from city hall, you know, some of the questions that they bring up is you know, is it office space or amenities associated to the development can is that does that count towards my percentage or is it just simply like the public has to be able to access it? >> Great questions. >> And then I guess the last comment I have is

39:16 how do we how do we also balance the the sort of the reality of hey, if the entire area has got all commercial in the bottom, right? Like then I'm a little bit more pro like we can be flexible, you know, as far as what the what the bottom floor looks like with the fact that if there's no grocery stores or other sort of amenities and no you know, zero commercial in that area, right? It seems like at that point we'd want to be a little bit more rigid towards towards the commercial. >> Councilor Wygle, you know, what I'm going to ask you about. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a certain percentage of commercial that we have to maintain? Isn't that kind of a like a state regulation there's a

40:02 certain amount of commercial that we have to maintain in order to have those so it's not like you open this up and all of a sudden it's all housing and all the commercial is >> Yeah, and that's what we talked about with the properties under an acre. That was where we had our surplus so that's why we were trying to um, be a little stricter on the size and the locations as well. >> That's right. I've always thought that commercial on the bottom and residential above would be ideal. But, and I still think that, but we're starting to mix it up and we need to do that. We need to be flexible. So, we accommodate what we need out there. >> All right, let's keep going. >> Okay.

40:48 >> Okay, I'll jump back in here. So, thank you for that those uh comments. Uh we're turning now to So, some of the development standards that would apply to either a housing or a stand-alone housing or a mixed-use development. Um, so where it's permitted. So, throughout these zones, there's some sort of general um uh issues we we've identified. Um, the first one being that uh some of the current um mixed-use districts uh have um a minimum density standard um and some do not. Uh so, as a reminder, the sort of purpose of a minimum density standard is to ensure that um this commercial and mixed-use land, which is being used for housing, is being used efficiently. So, we're getting a

41:33 certain number of units um out of that site every time it gets built. So, the intent is to prevent for relatively low-density residential development being built in some of these commercial and mixed-use zones. Um, so today, minimum density standards are relatively inconsistent um across these and some are not there. And our general recommendation right now is to establish a minimum density standard um somewhere in the range of about 15 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre. So, you can see on this chart where that falls is is generally at the scale of what we would call middle housing. Um, so a kind of townhomes, quadplexes, things like that. Uh up you know anything above that for your two, three, four story mid-rise

42:19 sort of apartment or condo building. So that level of minimum density strikes a balance there between making sure there's an efficient use of land, but also making sure that developers have flexibility to provide for a variety of housing products. Can go to the next slide? Uh so there's in many of these commercial and mixed-use districts, there is a requirement that when a building gets close to the property line that is adjacent to a residential district, particularly the lower density and medium density districts, that that building step down in height to the equivalent maximum height that's permitted in that adjacent zone. And so

43:05 that image on the left you're seeing there is example of how that building needs to step down in height. Um the disadvantage of the current regulation is that it applies to a good portion of that commercial or mixed-use site. So any part of the site that's within 50 ft of that adjacent residential zone must step down in height. And there's just a lot of inefficiencies that are lost there and more complex building that's more costly to construct if you need to step down the height like that. Uh and generally it will just limit the buildable area and the potential density that could be achieved on that site. So recommended concept is to still require that step down. We see the policy intent

43:51 there to make sure there's a transition to these lower density zones. Uh prevents um uh things like long shadows being cast on adjacent properties, but we think a step down starting at something like 25 ft uh strike that balance a little better than the current standard, especially on those smaller sites. You can go to the next slide. So, we mentioned the neighborhood commercial district. Uh right now, that district is um really intended only for uh commercial uses, um things like your neighborhood convenience store or coffee shop. Those are typically not over one or two stories, and so the maximum height in the district is actually 20 ft, which is one of the lowest um maximum heights

44:36 uh in um any of the residential or commercial zones uh in the city. And so, the recommendation here is that if the city's intent is to allow for vertical mixed-use developments, or residential above commercial, uh then it would make more sense to allow some taller taller buildings in that NC district. And so, to allow up to about four stories, so a height of 45 to 50 ft. Um that would make sure that those vertical mixed-use buildings are more actually financially viable to build. They need a certain number of residential units for that project usually to pencil, to economically make sense, um because that ground-floor commercial space isn't likely to be the most productive uh use of the space on

45:21 the site. Uh help allowing for more dwelling units above uh will kind of help that formula for uh economic feasibility. You can go to the next slide. So, a similar kind of issue in the NC and also the mixed-use residential districts, they have a relatively low maximum lot coverage. And so, this is the the percentage of the building, percentage of the lot that can be covered by a building. It's about 35 or 40% today. Um that's really not well aligned with the intent for these districts to allow some higher-density residential uses. Uh so, the recommendation here would be to increase that maximum lot coverage to something in the in the range 50 to 75% You to calibrate what the right number is for each of those districts and um

46:07 but generally to increase it so we can make sure that um you know that higher density residential housing uh is viable to build and isn't required to um to fit into a real small portion of a lot. Okay and we'll kick it back over to Haley to go through some questions here. >> Thank you, Jamin. So, I'm just going to read the questions real quick. Um number one, do you agree that a minimum density standard is important to these districts? Do you agree with the proposed changes to maximum height regulations intended to reduce reduce barriers to higher density housing? And then what design issues are most important to you when you think about development in these districts? >> Councilor Rodli. >> Okay, I'll kick us off. We'll see if we're still aligned.

46:52 Um I'm just in full transparency, this section is the section I have probably noodled and struggled with the most and I will share why. Um I am still very much like let's reduce the the barriers to creative development and this is where I think residents are going to really feel the impact. Um when I think of people who have come and talked to me about development in in my ward in the Mohawk area or whatever, the the height and the proximity to the street and and those kind of things that start to really change the feel of a neighborhood. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just saying that I'm sitting with it and being like this is where people are really going to feel it and we should probably be really thoughtful and think

47:38 about what we're doing. In terms of the minimum density, yes, I support that. Um I also um the the step down, that's a thing where I'm like oh we should we should talk about that and it might be that we end up with some areas where we're like yeah, we're good with four to six in these areas, but we're probably not good with that in some other ones. Or so, how do we balance that out with maybe that vertical, horizontal, whatever stuff. Um and then the maximum lot coverage looks really great. And that's the place where I think you can see buildings that are like budding up right up against the street or things that people have had feelings about or we lose some of that green space. So,

48:25 I'm I'm I'm open to the conversation and I'm not It doesn't feel like the slam dunk that the other decisions did for me. >> Councilwoman >> We are still very much aligned on this one. Um I I struggle with I think when we met before uh this it was a little bit different. It was just talking about going up to the maximum height of the neighborhood, which I think is 30 ft for for approximately, right? >> Yeah, it's going to depend on a budding residential. >> Which in my mind, um even understanding that it it changes costs and whatnot, might not be feasible feasible, you know, for a builder to do, but it makes more sense to me to keep the aesthetic of the neighborhood. And if you put a five-story building right in the middle of a residential, you know, area, I think we're going to have a lot of upset neighbors um with with that. I just I just don't see

49:12 that as um something that I would support. So. >> Councilwoman I I I don't disagree with what my colleagues have suggested already. Um that said, I will I will put my spin on it, which is to say, I'm actually I'd be in favor of a lower minimum density and I mostly say that because of weird lot shapes and the number of times people come to the planning desk say, "Hey, can I build this here?" Yeah, but your shape you're the It's just really awkward to build. So, I wouldn't want something to artificially prohibit development because the lot was shaped weirdly. Um on the height I I I think I I I lean their direction on the height and just that being care careful of that. But then on the lot filling out, I'm

49:57 actually very much in favor of um a more filled in lots for the neighborhood commercial. I think that's actually would be very helpful for those particular kinds of developments because of the the fact that we could have housing up top and it's just a no-brainer to allow a increased height. We're only talking three stories there at the most. And it's almost unfeasible to build more than two stories most of the time with these kinds of developments. So, that's my two cents. Thanks. Councilor Blackwell. >> To Councilor Stout's point, the at first I was kind of against the you know using up the more of the lot the same with one element of green space and keeping it neighborhood appeal. But that might encourage more of the horizontal

50:43 type of development in those commercial spaces because builders would be allowed to use more more of the property. >> Correct. Yes. I mean we we still have to take into account like storm water. If the developer chooses to install parking, we're not required to have them provide parking. But if they choose to provide parking, we also have to consider that too on the site. Or they would have to consider that. >> Yeah, I I feel very much aligned with a with a bunch of my colleagues here. I think the one that jumped out to me was the maximum height step down adjacent to residential. And I think I'm still curious here because if when I look at the diagrams and I think about being in that neighborhood, right? I think you would

51:29 have to show me more information to get the idea that we're not creating sort of those lack of sun tunnels. Right? Like and um just looking at the diagram, I can't tell potentially of what what that negative impact is. But I but if somebody kind of showed showed me more information about what it would look like. Yeah, I think uh okay. >> I can give you an example really fast. Um so most people here should know that we own a property on 16th and Maine. Um we're potentially considering um you know, the development of affordable housing or income qualified housing at that location. The majority of the property is actually zoned commercial, um but the northern portion of the property is zoned low-density residential. So, um if you were to develop on that property,

52:14 there would be a 50-ft setback from um the abutting residential to it, and then that means that the building could only be 35 ft tall. 50 So, 50 ft from it can only be 35 ft tall. Versus you could have um if you reduce it to 25 ft, that means it could, you know, be 35 ft 25 ft from the property lines as opposed to 50 ft from the property lines. It would have to be 35 ft. Does that help with the visual? >> Yes, but I'm having to think about it a little bit more, right? Because I I see the restriction from the building size, right? But if I'm thinking about being on that northern northern lot, you know what I mean? I'm like, well, is that it does that restriction make, you know, potentially make sense? Or if if we've agreed to this, would we just essentially leave you, you know, would

53:00 we impact the livelihood of the the folks that were on the low low-density portion of it? So, um the other piece that like I'm fine with going with a minimum density. Um I and the maximum height in uh in the a neighborhood commercial district >> Yeah, I've >> like I would I was fine with those. A lot of these are just sort of all potential abrasion points. And I keep when I read through this section, I keep going back to the initial um sort of market analysis that we saw when we started all of this. And I think the question I have is that market analysis would lead me to believe we're never going to see any kind of type type of these buildings. And I'm trying to reconcile as we go through this and we're doing this work, I'm trying to reconcile those two

53:45 conversations especially since they use the same consultant. Um because on one hand we're telling the public we're never going to see these types of buildings. On the other hand, we're actually, you know, creating, you know, rules and regulations to allow these types of buildings, which either means that we are going to see them or we're not going to or or we're essentially we're not addressing the core economic problems that are um dealing with uh development in the city. >> Yeah. I think what's important about this presentation is we're actually talking about the fact that we're going to allow it. Right now, like I said in the beginning of the presentation, we generally don't allow this type of development to begin with. Um so then then we have to go into how do we regulate it a little bit. Um if we allow housing in a commercial areas where we don't have density, what

54:30 does that look like? >> Yeah. Density. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't want to uh hold up the process by any means, but I think council is really keying in on an important aspect of this conversation is what would it visually look like and what would be the experience of people um in these different scenarios of building height. And so I'm just wondering if it'd be possible to uh come to council either either in a work session or a briefing memo to give you some visual aids of uh what that would look like. I think I'm I'm I'm kind of just hurting for something to look at and make a comparison to and I think I'm that's the vibe I'm I'm catching here. Okay. >> I think that's accurate. Okay, we've got 5 minutes left, so I

55:15 don't know if you if you want to skip to a particular one that would help you. >> Um yes. >> We'll probably go a couple minutes over since basically everybody is in the >> Yes. Um so Jim, if that's okay, I'm going to actually skip ahead to 4.4 cuz that's the one that I actually really do need to cover tonight. Um and again, if we have extra minutes, we probably won't, we can come back to the other ones. Um so, concept 4.4 is kind of the the meat and potatoes, um an important discussion. Um this option would replace the Booth-Kelly Mixed Use District and the Mixed Use Light Medium Industrial Community Commercial District with the Mixed Use Employment District. That means you're going from three districts down to one district. Um the Mixed Use Light Medium Industrial Community Commercial District, that's

56:00 around along Pioneer Parkway and 126th that interchange, uh was established by the Gateway Refinement Plan, but is not defined in the development code. Industrial and commercial uses are permitted, but there are limits on the commercial uses, and residential is prohibited in this area in this district. The Booth-Kelly Mixed Use District in downtown, um it's in the downtown refinement plan and allows industrial and commercial uses with no limitation. Residential uses are allowed, but they're limited to 35% of the district, the entire district. Uh the Mixed Use Employment District is not mapped. It literally does not exist on our zoning map. Um it allows industrial, commercial, and residential. However, some types of commercial uses

56:46 are prohibited, and industrial uses must make up no less than 60% of the floor area. There may be an opportunity to streamline and simplify the city's land use districts and code regulations, again by rezoning Booth-Kelly Mixed Use and the Mixed Use LMICC to the Mixed Use Employment District. This would allow for the Booth-Kelly Mixed Use District to be removed from the code and to simplify the number of land use plan districts, which I mentioned earlier. It would also resolve issues with the enforceability and legal status of the Mixed Use Light Medium Industrial Community Commercial District due to the regulations being located in a refinement plan and not in the development code. So, that means, you know, if you have if you're trying to decide development, you have to look at potentially three different districts um to try to understand what those regulations are. Um it would allow housing opportunities

57:31 in the Mixed Use light medium industrial community, commercial district where it's currently is not allowed. So, there's some implica- implications that I need to go into here. Um, residential would be newly permitted in the mixed use LMI-CC um, and would continue to be permitted in the Booth Kelly mixed use district. Commercial uses would be more restrictive in both districts. Retail, certain office uses, and hotels would be prohibited. Industrial uses would continue to be permitted. However, there would be a new maximum height limit of 60 ft um, where no maximum height currently applies and the design standards of uh, 3.2.2625 would apply. So, to mitigate some of these impacts, um, it is recommended that we modify the mixed use employment district before um,

58:17 we rezone some of these properties. We would reconsider the requirement for industrial uses to be the primary use as a minimum of 60% of the district. If we don't remove this provision, um, we don't apply it to the Booth Kelly mixed use district. We would allow for the full range of retail, office, and institutional uses so as not to prohibit any uses that are currently allowed. We would ensure that allowing for residential is appropriate in the mixed use LMI-CC district and ensure the height limit and design standards are appropriate or modify them as needed. So, we're trying to allow as much flexibility as possible while simplifying the code. So, two important questions that I want to try to get through real quick. Um, depending on council's priorities, the housing and design project can broadly address the changes to the Booth

59:03 Kelly mixed use district now or amend the district at a later date. We need to include include the economic development opportunity of the Booth Kelly mixed use district and you passed a council resolution in 2022 that the Booth Kelly mixed use facility be leased um, allow lease commercial space until July 1st of 2027. It's coming up. Um, if we do proceed with addressing Booth Kelly mixed use as part of this project, do you anticipate any major concerns or issues with replacing or consolidating these districts? >> I have one question before. Um, under the rules that we ended up with Booth Kelly, are we under any obligation to that it maintain that it maintains its own specialized district?

59:52 >> Sorry, um, I don't believe so, but we can confirm. >> Okay. >> Councilor Roddy. >> This is a lot. Um, I think that I am supportive of this and um, when I think of like what what my concerns are, I think it's um, while we're talking about simplifying, it sure sounded complicated. So, there's that. So, I'm just trusting you that when we get to the other side, it's going to be simplified. Um, and I think to to a point that the mayor made earlier, I think these are areas where I really would be concerned about like environmental issues and like what's, you know, if you're spray painting autos next to where we're adding buildings and the infrastructure piece. But, I I'm

1:00:37 I'm open. I think I can get there, but I might need a little more work on the details of this one. >> I am in the same exact spot. Um, I think I'm like simplifying the code makes a lot of sense. Simplifying zoning makes a lot of sense to me. You can get me you can get me there pretty easily. The thing I think about, and this is coming from the ward that I represented a long time and neighborhoods that I have walked a long time, is a lot of those residential areas abut, you know, you know, the the Shelley Street area and it is all has always been a challenge, noise and you know, environmental impacts, trucking, traffic, right? And it has been a huge abrasion point between those neighbors to the point that they have not been able to sleep, and those businesses to,

1:01:23 you know, successfully operate in a world where you know, they need to run 24 hours a day. So, I think the question I'm I'm comfortable going down this road, but the question I would have to have answered for me is how do we marry those two needs in a way that allows any business that we say can operate to operate competitively, as well as like people have got to get some sleep and, you know, be safe in their homes. Councilor Weiler. >> Um I I'm a little bit concerned about, and maybe I just need to understand it better, um you know, at a later date when we have more time to talk about this,

1:02:08 but the commercial uses being more restrictive um as far as retail, certain office uses, and hotels being prohibited. Just kind of getting my head wrapped around what that really means. >> It It means that in one of the districts now, I should know this, that right now it's prohibited, but the recommendation was to not prohibit it. Um I believe it's in the Yeah. >> So, what I'm reading here where it says commercial uses would be more restrictive, you're saying that's not >> Yeah, so basically Cascadia Partners, when they looked at this, they identified the key implications, right? Those implications was right now we prohibit it, and I believe it's in our mixed-use employment district. We

1:02:53 prohibit some of those retail, office uses, hotel uses. With this code rewrite, because we have no properties that are actually zoned mixed-use employment, it's okay for us to rewrite these restrictions on our uses, because it's not impacting any properties in particular right now to allow those uses. It's not going to create an impact. >> Got it. Thank you. >> All right. I think that is it. We squeezed every question we could. This is fantastic work. You know, the consultant this is the second or third time we've seen your guys' work. It's really interesting and really compelling. So I'm looking forward to you guys coming back so you can finish the rest of the presentation. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. I just want to do a quick note. I heard a couple of those concerns about height and lot coverage and also

1:03:39 sort of confusion about how our market analysis sort of applies to some of these code amendments. So we'd be glad to come back and clarify some of those things in a future meeting, provide some more visuals for you to sort of wrap your head around some of these changes. >> Perfect. We appreciate the work. All right, we are adjourned.