Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2020-07-27 - Number 08.1 - Staff Memo w-Attach 07/16/20 (PP 19-0008) MEMORANDUM Cf °REGp,/ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik Olson, Senior Planner SUBJECT: HB 2001 and HB 2003 Rulemaking Update—July 2020 (PP 19-0008) DATE: July 16, 2020 MEETING DATE: June 27, 2020 In late 2019, City Council requested that staff monitor the State of Oregon's rulemaking process regarding the implementation of HB 2001, with particular attention to how the bill could impact Lake Oswego—which is defined as a "large and metro" city under the bill. Since that time, staff has tracked numerous meetings of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC) and other technical advisory committees established by DLCD to develop and refine detailed recommendations on how to implement the middle housing provisions of the bill. These technical advisory committees have been working for several months now to develop recommendations regarding the minimum requirements for jurisdictions to comply with middle housing provisions, the model code that will apply to cities unable to adopt their own compliant housing code, an extension-request process for cities with identified infrastructure constraints, and a reporting and monitoring process related to the Housing Production Strategies elements of HB 2003. Monthly summaries of state Rulemaking activity can be found here: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/pp-19-0008-house-bills-2001-and-2003. While the rulemaking committees have initiated several important discussions central to how extensively the bill will apply within local jurisdictions, it is clear that the RAC and other technical committees have yet to reach a consensus on many key issues. Staff has provided a summary of these key issues and the status of associated decision-making processes below. Implementation Flexibility for Local Jurisdictions Perhaps the most critical issue being discussed is the amount of flexibility that will be provided to local jurisdictions in determining the locations where middle housing will or will not be allowed within their boundaries. Though language in HB 2001 is relatively clear that duplexes must be permitted on each lot or parcel where single-family dwellings are currently permitted, the requirements related to other middle housing types are much more difficult to define. The bill contains language which states that, for "large and metro"jurisdictions throughout the state (including Lake Oswego), triplexes, quad-plexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters shall be 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 permitted "in areas" that currently allow single-family residential dwellings. DLCD rulemaking committees have dedicated a considerable amount of time defining parameters for what was meant by this "in areas" language within the bill. Though they have yet to agree upon even a theoretical approach for how to address this question, there is a general agreement that these "higher" middle housing types— unlike duplexes—were not intended to be allowed on every lot zoned for single-family residential use. At more recent meetings, DLCD staff suggested two different potential approaches for how to define the "areas" where middle housing could be permitted. The first was referred to as the "whittle" approach, which begins with an assumption that higher middle housing would be allowed in all existing areas zoned for single-family residential dwellings, and then applies exemptions locally where higher middle housing would not be allowed due to the presence of goal-protected resources (e.g., sensitive lands, steep slopes, etc.) or infrastructure-related constraints. The second was referred to as the "balloon" approach, which would determine areas suitable for higher middle housing based on locational criteria such as proximity to existing urban centers and services. Though some committee members expressed support for the "whittle" approach, they were unable to agree specifically about which areas should be "whittled", or deemed unsuitable for higher middle housing development. Committee members generally did not consider locational criteria other than those related to goal-protected resources to be appropriate, with members noting that proximity to transit would be difficult to address through zoning due to varying conditions and the fact that transit routes change over time. Rulemaking committee members also expressed concerns over the equity implications of defining the areas where middle housing is allowed based on historical land use patterns, which members argued would have the potential to exacerbate racial segregation and maintain existing concentrations of poverty. Ultimately, many stressed the need for an inclusive approach that does not allow jurisdictions to adopt middle housing regulations that effectively maintain single-family only zoning, arguing that this would continue to exclude people of certain income levels or demographics from the community. Others expressed opposition to the discussion being framed using the "whittle"/ "balloon" terms to begin with, and reiterated the need for jurisdictions to be provided with the necessary flexibility to determine where middle housing would be most suitable based on local knowledge within their communities. DLCD staff emphasized that, regardless of how the term "areas" is ultimately defined, at a minimum it will be necessary to allow flexibility for jurisdictions to locate middle housing development outside of areas with goal-protected resources or constrained infrastructure. DLCD highlighted the distinction between "infrastructure-deficient" and "infrastructure- constrained" areas, noting that "infrastructure-constrained" areas would have a more inclusive definition than areas deemed "infrastructure-deficient"—a term used for the purposes of the infrastructure-based time extension request (IBTER) process. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 Under the IBTER process, "infrastructure-deficient" areas are eventually required to allow all types of middle housing, as local governments applying for an IBTER extension are expected to provide the necessary infrastructure improvements for these areas within the period of the granted time extension. On the other hand, according to DLCD, "infrastructure constrained areas" will "likely not see the necessary infrastructure needed to allow for higher density middle housing for the foreseeable future and should therefore be exempt from higher middle housing development" (see Attachment C). DLCD offered some examples of what could be considered an "infrastructure-constrained" area, such as areas with unpaved streets and areas without water or sewer lines. Members agreed that restrictions on middle housing in areas containing sensitive resources protected under statewide planning goals would also be warranted in order to protect such resources or mitigate risk to life or property from hazards. Goal-protected areas include those protected under Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5, which covers resources as diverse as riparian corridors, wetlands, buildings on the historic register, wildlife habitat, federal- and state-designated scenic rivers and waterways, natural energy sources, natural or wilderness areas, trails, mineral resources, and cultural resources. This also includes areas protected under Statewide Planning Goal 7, which covers areas subject to natural hazards such as flooding, landslides, earthquakes, and wildfires. Resources protected through other statewide planning goals include agricultural areas, forest lands, the Willamette River Greenway, and a number of different areas along the coast. DLCD also noted the need to accommodate potentially-unanticipated circumstances where local jurisdictions may need additional flexibility to justify restricting middle housing in a particular area. They provided an example from the Residential Infill Project in Portland, where middle housing had to be prohibited within the "airport noise impact overlay zone", where the City had a prior agreement with the Port of Portland to restrict residential density in order to comply with federal regulations. Committee members were in general agreement that the parameters for locating middle housing should not be overly-prescriptive, and that requirements should address the likelihood that unpredictable scenarios may arise as they continue to draft the minimum requirements for middle housing. Though rulemaking committees were able to initiate important discussions regarding how to define "in areas" in recent months, it's clear that these discussions will need to continue at future meetings before a decision is made. Staff notes that, if the Planning Commission has any important input regarding the amount of flexibility needed for local jurisdictions to determine the areas where middle housing should be allowed, it would be advisable to provide comment to DLCD prior to July 28, 2020. Staff will monitor future rulemaking meetings in order to better understand the direction of the conversation regarding the definition of"in areas" prior to recommending any comments. Minimum Lot Size Requirements In addition to the question of which "areas" higher middle housing should be permitted within, minimum requirements related to dimensional standards for higher middle housing will also be 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 4 very influential in determining the extent to which such housing types are effectively permitted. For instance, while triplexes and quad-plexes would not be permitted in areas with goal- protected resources or infrastructure constraints under the "whittle" approach, standards related to minimum lot size and density will largely determine the extent to which these middle housing types will be allowed in other areas where existing resources and infrastructure constraints are less of an issue. At a technical advisory committee in late June, DLCD modified the proposed minimum lot size requirements for "higher" middle housing types in order to permit not just duplexes, but also triplexes and quad-plexes, on each lot or parcel zoned for detached single-family dwellings. Prior to this change, DLCD had maintained that the bill provides clear direction that duplexes must be allowed on each lot or parcel, and up until this point the minimum compliance for minimum lot size in the draft model code was designed to reflect this one-duplex-per-lot concept being extended to address middle housing types containing more than two units (triplexes would have been allowed on lots 1.5x times the minimum lot size of a zone, quad- plexes would have been allowed on lots 2x the minimum lot size of a zone, etc.). The decision was made to update the minimum compliance to prevent jurisdictions from requiring larger minimum lot sizes for triplexes or quad-plexes than for detached single-family dwellings based on the results on a financial feasibility study conducted by EcoNorthwest (see Attachment D). The study found that "Requiring larger lots increases costs, decreases feasibility, and reduces the supply of lots where triplex and fourplex development is allowed". This study recommended setting the minimum lot size for triplexes and quad-plexes the same as for single-family detached homes in a given residential zone, and this change is now reflected in the current language proposed for minimum compliance related to minimum lot size for triplexes and quad-plexes (see Attachment E). Staff notes that the decision to permit duplexes, triplexes, and quad-plexes on lots currently zoned for detached single-family residential use under minimum lot size regulations does not preclude the City from using other mechanisms to determine the location of higher middle housing. As discussed above under Implementation Flexibility for Local Jurisdictions, jurisdictions are likely to be provided with the flexibility to limit middle housing development in areas with either goal-protected resources or infrastructure constraints. However, for other areas within the City, the decision to set the minimum lot size for higher middle housing types the same as for single-family dwellings effectively increases the number of lots in Lake Oswego where these middle housing types could potentially be permitted. Per the conclusions in Attachment D, this change would also reduce costs and increase the feasibility of triplex and quad-plex construction in these areas. DLCD staff mentioned that the draft Administrative Rules and Model Code for large and metro cities will be ready by either Model Code Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) Meeting#8 (August 4, 2020) or MCTAC Meeting#9 (September 1, 2020). Staff notes that, if the Planning Commission has any important input regarding the proposed minimum compliance language 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 5 related to minimum lot size for triplexes and quad-plexes, it would be advisable to provide comment to DLCD prior to July 28, 2020. Given the amount of uncertainty that remains about this issue, staff recommends conducting an analysis of lots within the City where middle housing may be permitted once the draft Administrative Rules have been finalized. Staff will continue to monitor this issue as the committees refine their recommendations. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Rulemaking committee meetings have also engaged in contentious discussions regarding the intent of HB 2001 and the role of the model code as it relates to off-street parking requirements. During the development of the minimum requirements and model code for "medium" cities (10,000 to 25,000 in population), some members expressed concerns with DLCD's proposal to prevent jurisdictions from being able to require more than two (2) spaces for a duplex, and for no off-street parking to be required for duplexes under the model code. Given that many of the cities defined as "medium" under HB 2001 are more rural in character than those in the "large and metro" cities category, representatives from "medium" sized jurisdictions felt that this recommendation was out of sync with their communities because their residents depend upon the use of automobiles more than residents of denser communities with better access to transit. Further, some members argued that having no parking requirement in the model code put smaller jurisdictions with limited planning staff capacity in a tough position, forcing them to amend their codes by inserting what they consider to be akin to a "poison pill" in the model code. DLCD staff responded by noting that the lack of a parking requirement in the model code was intended to encourage jurisdictions to have conversations about parking at the local level, allowing those communities to determine what makes sense for them through the process of amending their own development codes. Staff notes that Lake Oswego would not be required to adopt the eventual provisions in the Large and Metro Cities Model Code unless the City fails to adopt regulations that meet minimum compliance by June 30, 2022. As another response to these concerns, DLCD gave a presentation to the MCTAC that explored the issue of parking in medium-sized cities in more detail. The presentation used American Community Survey data and other data that captures the costs and impacts associated with parking requirements in order to argue that those requirements can present a barrier to the development of housing—particularly affordable housing—even in medium-sized jurisdictions. The presentation concluded that providing off-street parking adds to the cost of a development and can reduce the area on the site that could be developed as housing. Despite the differing perspectives, the recommendation for minimum compliance for medium- sized cities that was presented to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for adoption continued to cap the number of spaces that can be required for a duplex at two (2) 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 6 off-street parking spaces. Per Attachment E, this language would also apply to duplexes in large and metro cities under the current draft of the proposed minimum requirements. Language proposed for minimum compliance for triplexes and quad-plexes in large and metro cities similarly extends this one-space-per-unit ratio to other housing types, so that jurisdictions are unable to require more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for a triplex, four (4) off-street parking spaces for a quad-plex, etc. Staff notes that the issue of off-street parking has not garnered much discussion in the context of large and metro cities, and it does not seem likely that these recommendations will be changed before the recommended minimum requirements for large and metro cities are presented to LCDC. Staff also notes that the one-space-per unit concept proposed by DLCD is fairly similar to the system currently used by the City—which requires one (1) parking space per unit for single-family dwellings and duplexes. However, more parking is currently required by the Lake Oswego development code for developments of three (3) or more units (currently defined as "multifamily" under the code); for instance, within such developments 1 parking space is required for a studio unit, 1.25 spaces for a one-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for a unit with two-bedrooms or more. Thus, for developments of three (3) or more units, the proposed one-space-per unit concept being developed by the state may represent a reduction from the number of parking spaces currently required in Lake Oswego. If the Planning Commission has any important input regarding the proposed minimum compliance for off-street parking requirements, it would be advisable to provide comment to DLCD prior to July 28, 2020. Staff will continue to monitor this issue. ATTACHMENTS A. Updated "In Areas" Memo, 7/10/2020 B. Summary of Triplex/Fourplex Financial Feasibility Sensitivity Testing for Middle Housing Model Code, 6/15/2020 C. Large & Metro Cities Model Code, Parts 1, 2 & 3, 6/18/2020 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us HOUSING RU LEMAKI NG ADVISORY COMMITTEE 0.1111011* .�, MEETING PACKET #8 DLCD TO: Model Code Technical Advisory Committee Members FROM: Ethan Stuckmayer, Senior Housing Planner; Robert Mansolillo, Housing Planner SUBJECT: Approaches to Defining "In Areas" Introduction At this point in the rulemaking process for HB 2001, we are confronted with the issue of clarifying the meaning behind the phrase "in areas"for the development of higher density middle housing. For Large and Metro cities,this definition is important in determining where "higher middle housing types" (i.e. triplex, quadplex, cottage clusters and townhomes)will be allowed. As it applies to medium cities, HB 2001 states that duplexes must be allowed on each lot or parcel zoned for residential use.The same language applies to Large and Metro cities where duplexes are concerned, however,there is different language to direct where higher middle housing types are allowed. HB 2001 Section 2 (2) states (emphasis added), "...each city with a population of 25,000 or more and each county or city within a metropolitan service district shall allow the development of: (a)All middle housing types in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings;...". "In areas zoned for residential use" is not as prescriptive as "each lot or parcel" and is somewhat ambiguous as to exactly where higher density middle housing is allowed.A key priority in rulemaking for Large and Metro cities is clarifying how this phrase should apply to fulfill the intent of House Bill 2001. Approach Overview The department considered two approaches to clarify the meaning of"in areas"—the "whittle" approach and the "balloon" approach.The project team discussed the pros and cons of each with approaches with the RAC at their June 9 meeting and the MCTAC at their June 25 meeting. "Whittle"Approach The basis for the "whittle" approach is to allow as many lots or parcels as possible to qualify for the allowance of higher middle housing types. However,the department recognizes the need for cities to ensure that the allowance for higher middle housing types do not preclude their ability to apply protective measures in goal protected areas. Likewise,the department has heard that cities need to balance the allowance of higher middle housing types with the availability of adequate infrastructure systems. As such, the "whittle" approach would start from a base assumption that all areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of single-family detached dwellings are eligible for the allowance of "In Areas" Memo Housing RAC#8 Page 1 of 4 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 4 Page 53 of 191 higher middle housing types. From there, a local jurisdiction would consider restrictions on middle housing in areas that are not well-suited for higher middle housing development. The first priority would include statewide planning goal-protected areas, in which restrictions on middle housing are warranted to protect resources or mitigate risk to life or property from hazards. Additionally, areas with insufficient infrastructure to serve higher middle housing types (i.e. "infrastructure constrained areas") may warrant additional restrictions on higher middle housing types. The distinction between infrastructure deficient and constrained areas is important to highlight. "Infrastructure deficient areas" are required to allow all types of middle housing,with a local government applying for an IBTER to allow them time to provide necessary infrastructure improvements. "Infrastructure constrained areas" will likely not see the necessary infrastructure needed to allow for higher density middle housing for the foreseeable future and should therefore be exempt from higher middle housing development. There may be areas where the infrastructure constraints are so significant that a local government wouldn't have the capacity(funding) to address them, and would prefer to not allow higher middle housing in these areas. Examples of this could be an area of unpaved streets without adequate right-of-way width to accommodate new roads, or areas where water or sewer lines cannot feasibly be installed because of natural or topographic constraints. Local governments will have the opportunity to highlight these areas and propose exemption from higher level middle housing regulations. Currently,the Large and Metro Cities Model Code is structured to allow middle housing in areas zoned for residential use as described above (all residentially zoned areas that allow for detached single-family dwellings except goal protected areas and infrastructure constrained areas), but local jurisdictions may need additional flexibility to justify further restriction on the allowance of higher middle housing in certain areas. "Balloon" Approach The "balloon" approach is based on locational services, such as public transit, existing higher density areas, and mixed residential and commercial use zones.This approach would encourage middle housing development in categorical areas that are already higher density and have transportation or other services. This "balloon" approach will allow middle housing types in areas that are already higher density and will most likely have services available to promote reduced dependence on auto travel. However, the department identifies two potential complications with the "ballooning" approach: Equity implications—One clear theme from previous RAC discussions with regard to the Large and Metro Cities Model Code was that attempting to develop locational criteria for the allowance of middle housing had the potential to result in a distorted provision of housing opportunities, which could disproportionately benefit certain communities while precluding high opportunity housing options for communities with less access to opportunity. Ensuring the intent of House Bill 2001 is fulfilled—While there are undoubtedly discussion and questions surrounding the specific legislative intent of House Bill 2001,there is a clear and certain intent to provide more housing choice in historically exclusive residential areas. One obstacle in achieving this intent is among traditionally exclusive communities that seek to limit the provision of higher middle "In Areas" Memo Housing RAC#8 Page 2 of 4 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 2 OF 4 Page 54 of 191 housing types to limited portions of the city.This could potentially provide the opportunity for exclusive communities with greater means to better lobby and enforce the prohibition of middle housing in their neighborhoods, which would have the effect of reinforcing segregation on the basis of class and race, a pattern that has been largely upheld by current zoning practice in the United States and Oregon. Committee Discussion At the June 25 MCTAC meeting, committee members expressed concern that these two approaches do not represent all of the options available to define "in areas"for higher level middle housing. Some committee members presented alternative approaches to the two presented by department staff.The alternative approaches presented either closely resembled a viable iteration of the "whittle" or "balloon" approach, or took the approach of setting aside certain percentages of neighborhoods for higher level middle housing.The project team had previously considered a similar percentage-based approach but continually found the task prohibitively arbitrary, especially in the context of setting a specific percentage that would apply to all middle housing types, in all neighborhoods, in all areas, of all large and metro cities in the State. The department understands that while these two approaches may not encompass the entire list of possible iterations to defining "areas",they do represent the underlying basis within which any definition of"in areas" could reasonably fall. Inherent in both approaches, is the base assumption that the department cannot possibly predetermine all instances in a local government where middle housing is not appropriate.To mitigate this, both approaches give the local governments the ability to make the case for why or where higher level middle housing should not be allowed.The department agrees that this flexibility at the local level is an important competent of these approaches that must be maintained throughout the rulemaking process. At the June 9 RAC meeting, the committee showed a clear preference for the "whittle" approach, at least in concept.This approach starts with a base assumption that middle housing is eligible in all residential areas zoned for single-family detached dwellings and layers in reductions to the allowance of middle housing in areas that are not well-suited for middle housing development. The other approach,the "balloon" approach, determines areas that are well-suited for middle housing development, considering locational factors such as proximity to centers and services.The project team and the committees took issue with the "balloon" approach in that this concept takes a static snapshot of a city's services and locational-based decisions as they exist today.This concept is flawed in that it not only limits the amount of middle housing development potential to areas that could serve to be developed more intensely, but also could perpetuate past inequities and exclusionary policies or land use decisions. For these reasons, among yet others, the project team has dismissed the "balloon" approach as an option. Operationalizing an Approach The department feels as though the "whittle" approach solves three primary issues simultaneously: 1) The approach provides the greatest development potential and the greatest level of certainty as to where higher middle housing types may be constructed, 2) When paired with other siting and design standards in the model code and minimum compliance standards, it is "lightweight" enough to allow for changes in the stock of "In Areas" Memo Housing RAC#8 Page 3 of 4 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 3 OF 4 Page 55 of 191 developable lands for higher level middle housing over time (as opposed to the "balloon" approach which is static). 3) It provides local government with the flexibility to further"whittle" lands that are not appropriate for higher level middle housing based on local circumstances which DLCD could not possibly foresee. However, if this approach to defining"in areas" is to be operationalized in rule,the department will need to provide clarity to local governments in how their requests to "whittle"will be reviewed. HB 2001 provides some guidance to the department in this effort.The intent of HB 2001, is to open the opportunity for middle housing options in locations in our communities that have historically excluded their development.This legislation overturns historically exclusive single-family zoning in the State of Oregon. As such, any rationale to exempt certain areas from higher level middle housing must not be facially exclusionary or"seemingly neutral". Discussion Prompt#1: We are looking to RAC members to provide rationale and guidance on instances in which a specific area, lot, or parcel should be excluded from middle housing provisions. Discussion Prompt#2: Additionally,the project team seeks guidance on how the Department should review the justification a city gives for excluding such an area from middle housing provisions. "In Areas" Memo Housing RAC#8 Page 4 of 4 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 4 OF 4 Page 56 of 191 ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING DATE: June 15, 2020 TO: Matt Hastie and Kate Rogers,Angelo Planning Group CC: Ethan Stuckmayer, Department of Land Conservation and Development FROM: Becky Hewitt and Tyler Bump, ECONorthwest SUBJECT: Summary of Triplex/Fourplex Financial Feasibility Sensitivity Testing for Middle Housing Model Code Introduction As part of the consultant team led by Angelo Planning Group (APG), ECONorthwest is advising on development feasibility for the Middle Housing Model Code project. This memo summarizes ECONorthwest's analysis of select model code provisions applicable to triplexes and quadplexes. We evaluate the potential impacts these model code provisions have on development feasibility under a range of market conditions. The intent of the analysis is to assist the project team and Model Code Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) in refining the triplex and quadplex standards in the draft Large&Metro Cities Model Code (LMCMC). The model code provisions selected for analysis are those expected to have the greatest potential impact on development feasibility for triplexes and quadplexes, and which were the subject of the most discussion during MCTAC meeting 5. These topics include: • Minimum off-street parking requirements • Minimum lot size • Floor area ratio (FAR) This memo summarizes the approach to the analysis, the assumptions underlying the sensitivity testing, and the results and findings from the analysis. Approach Site and Building Variations This analysis was limited to triplexes and fourplexes. Our analysis tested a range of lot sizes, parking options, and floor area ratios in various combinations. Based on direction from APG, we limited the range of development standards we tested to options currently under consideration by the MCTAC,including: • Minimum lot size: 3,000 sq.ft.;5,000 sq. ft.; 7,500 sq.ft.; 10,000 sq. ft. (assumed to match minimum lot sizes for single-family detached homes in the zone). • FAR: 0.6, 0.7, and 0.9 (higher FARs tested only on smaller lots). • Parking: two surface parking spaces (behind building), one driveway space(in front setback), two garage spaces with driveways, one garage space with driveway, and no dedicated parking(on-street only). ECONorthwest I Portland I Seattle I Los Angeles I Eugene I Boise I econw.com 1 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 13 Page 57 of 191 SERA Architects provided "test fits" to confirm whether the parking and FAR options would be physically feasible on various lot sizes. We did not test combinations that were identified as infeasible based on physical constraints. We also did not evaluate remodel/conversion of existing housing units into triplexes or fourplexes or the addition of housing units to a property while retaining an existing home, as these situations are even more highly variable and difficult to predict at this scale. A 2016 report by DECA Architecture as part of Portland's Residential Infill Project highlighted the challenges associated with conversion to a triplex or fourplex: "Conversion of a single family house into three or more units often involves navigating complex and/or challenging issues such as: -Transition from the residential to the commercial building code -Changes in occupancy from single family to apartments -Upgrading walls and floors/ceilings to achieve fire ratings -Upgrading walls and floors/ceilings to achieve sound ratings -Reducing exterior wall openings to meet commercial code -Adding fire sprinkler systems -Addressing ADA and accessibility issues -Seismic upgrade standards -Energy efficiency requirements" Variation in Market Conditions Due to the wide variation in market conditions and land costs statewide,we used three different sets of market conditions to illustrate a range of possible outcomes around the state, using representative financial inputs for each set of market conditions: • Cool: slow population growth,low land cost, low rent&home sales prices. • Warm: moderate population growth, moderate land cost, moderate rent&home sales prices. • Hot: rapid population growth,high land cost,high rent&home sales prices. 1 The study noted that"conversion of a single family home into a duplex(two dwellings)can often be achieved quite readily and without complex or costly upgrades." DECA Architecture,"Residential Infill Project Internal Conversion Report,"October 17,2016;page 2. ECONorthwest 2 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 13 Page 58 of 191 While this approach still oversimplifies the range of potential market conditions, it provides better insights than using a single set of market assumptions that represents a midpoint for the state as a whole. It's useful to think about market conditions as a continuum with a lot of local variation.We have chosen three illustrative examples to help highlight how results might vary in different places. The example market conditions we used were calibrated based on example communities in each category where ECONorthwest has done recent market analysis relevant to middle housing. Evaluating Feasibility For the purposes of this analysis, we limited our evaluation of feasibility to development of rental housing because the current Model Code standards and definitions for triplexes and fourplexes do not allow for dividing the lots to provide fee-simple ownership of individual units. While condominium ownership is possible and there are precedents for this,it is less common than rental for triplexes and fourplexes for several reasons: • Condo development is subject to construction defect liability rules that make it riskier and more expensive for developers and contractors. • Buyers tend to prefer fee-simple ownership, especially in a neighborhood context(vs. an urban high rise),because the condominium association adds complexity. • The legal process to create condominiums is complex and expensive enough that it can be burdensome for developers to building just a few units. Our approach to evaluating feasibility for rental housing considers whether a given development option could generate a sufficient return through the net rental income to justify the costs of new construction and to cover loan payments with a reasonable margin. (Our specific financing assumptions are provided on page 6.) For the purposes of this analysis, we have calculated the net cash flow that the owner or equity investor would receive—the remaining revenue from rents after accounting for vacancy, operating expenses, and loan payments—in the first year the project is complete and fully leased up as a percentage of the equity investment required to build the property. This is sometimes referred to as the "cash-on- cash" return. It is a relatively simple approach to understanding feasibility that does not account for long-term appreciation of the property, rent and operating expense increases over time, income tax benefits associated with owning rental property, or other factors. However, this simpler approach reasonably represents a first pass "does this pencil?" test by a potential developer,when determining whether to pursue something further and before refining the analysis to account for those additional factors. It is also important to note that demand and need for a given housing type do not necessarily translate into financial feasibility.If the rents that households who might choose that housing are willing and able to pay are too low to support the costs of new construction, development will not be feasible without government assistance. ECONorthwest 3 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 13 Page 59 of 191 Assumptions Our analysis uses typical and reasonable estimates for costs, rents, and expected financial returns. Individual circumstances can vary widely based on site,jurisdiction, and developer- specific variables. Thus, our analysis does not represent an absolute indication of feasibility,but rather a rough estimate of how feasibility might vary with changes to development standards and market conditions. One simplifying assumption that warrants further explanation is related to land costs. On a per square foot or per acre basis, land costs will tend to be higher where higher densities are possible. (Actual land costs can vary substantially based on the desirability of the location, the extent of site and infrastructure improvements needed, etc.) In zones that largely allow single- family housing, developers of triplexes and fourplexes will be competing for land with developers of single-family homes. If a triplex or fourplex requires the same land area as a single-family home, then a triplex or fourplex will need to generate financial returns that are roughly on par with the returns from building one single-family home in order to compete for that land. However, if a triplex or fourplex requires as much land as 2, 3, or 4 single-family homes, it must compete with the financial returns that those homes would generate in total. To account for this without adding substantial complexity to the analysis,we assume a constant cost per buildable home site that meets the minimum lot size for a single-family, detached home. Thus, the key driver of land cost for a triplex or fourplex is the amount of land required relative to what is needed for a single-family home. Development Costs Our cost assumptions are based on past developer and contractor interviews and research on costs in a few example jurisdictions. Item Assumption Notes Hard Costs 5% less in cool Past work has indicated little variation in construction cost in markets different parts of the state for larger development projects in particular. For purposes of this analysis,we assume a slight reduction in construction costs in cooler areas for small-scale development; however, remote communities with cool market conditions may face costs higher than those in warm and hot markets if skilled labor is not available locally. ECONorthwest 4 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 4 OF 13 Page 60 of 191 Item Assumption Notes Construction $113-$155 per Costs assume mid-level finishes.Actual construction costs can Cost of Units sq. ft.for projects vary widely depending on project design, materials, and that can meet finishes. However, many developers and contractors indicate residential smaller units tend to cost more on a per square foot basis building code; because spaces like kitchens and bathrooms cost more than $120-$165 per bedrooms and other habitable space. Larger units often have sq. ft.for projects more of the floor plan devoted to lower-cost space. For subject to purposes of sensitivity testing the impact of different code commercial standards, we hold finish level constant, but approximate building code2 variations based on unit size. Cost of Garage $35 per sq.ft. Lower cost due to unconditioned/ unfinished space. Translates Space to just under$10,000 for a one-car garage. Cost of $10 per sq.ft. Translates to roughly$2,500 for a one-car driveway. Driveways & Surface Parking Lawn & $2 per sq.ft. Actual costs can vary widely based on the landscaping Landscaped selected, but assumption is a mix of sod and limited higher-cost Areas landscaping(e.g.,shrubs). Soft Costs Architecture & $30,000- Includes plans, design, engineering, survey, and other Engineering $40,000 professional services. Often quoted as a percentage of hard costs. However, when looking only at triplex and fourplex development, costs are likely to vary little with total construction cost and more with site-and development-specific factors. Assumption is $30,000 for a triplex and $40,000 for a fourplex. Fully custom plans, challenging sites, or other issues could substantially increase costs. System Cool markets: System Development Charges (SDC) rate structures can vary Development $8,400-$12,250 substantially between jurisdictions. Water and sewer SDCs Charges, per unit often scale to some degree based on unit size (e.g., number of Construction Warm markets: plumbing fixtures) while other SDCs may or may not vary with Excise Tax, etc. $12,000- unit size. Warm markets were calibrated using Corvallis's fee $17,500 per unit estimator, while cool and hot markets were adjusted up or Hot markets: down to account for the fact that jurisdictions tend to charge $21,000- only what development can bear in that area even if they can $30,625 per unit legally charge more. Utility Hook-Up $3,000 Varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but typically costs Fee several thousand dollars per connection (would be roughly same cost for triplex as fourplex - does not vary with the number of units). Permit Fees 1.5%of hard Calibrated based on information from Corvallis. costs Developer Fee/ 4%of total Covers the developer's cost to manage the project, not profit/ Overhead development cost financial return on the investment. 2 Triplexes and fourplexes are typically subject to commercial building code standards,unless they can meet the building code definition for townhouses,which requires units attached side-by-side,but does not require units to be on separate lots.For purposes of this analysis,we assumed that combinations of development standards that allow an average unit size of at least 1,000 square feet could plausibly be configured with side-by-side units(not necessarily facing the street)and applied the lower construction costs to these situations. ECONorthwest 5 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 5 OF 13 Page 61 of 191 Item Assumption Notes Land Costs Cost per Cool markets: See discussion above. Assumptions are calibrated to fall within Buildable Single- $50,000 a range of prices observed for land sales in several example Family Lot Warm markets: communities. Actual land costs can vary significantly with site- $100,000 specific factors. Hot markets: $225,000 Revenue and Operating Expenses Item Assumption Notes Rent Cool markets: Actual rents will vary significantly based on locational $0.85-$1.75 per amenities,finishes, and unit size. For purposes of this analysis, sq. ft. we hold locational amenities and finishes constant and focus Warm markets: on unit-size variation. In cooler markets,there is less demand $1.05-$2.30 per for very small units, and also less of a market for large units sq. ft. with higher rents.The rent ranges are intended to be illustrative Hot markets: of potential conditions around the state rather than precisely $1.22-$2.85 per calibrated to a specific area. The lowest end of the range sq. ft. reflects large units (over 2,400 square feet), while the highest end reflects very small units (under 480 square feet). Additional Cool markets: $0 People in some areas may be willing to pay more in rent for Revenue for for surface/ garage or surface parking space whether parking is rented Parking driveway, $10 separately or included in the rent. This is more likely in denser per garage space areas, which tend to be warm or hot markets. These rent Warm markets: assumptions reflect the increase in rent per month associated $10 per surface with providing off-street parking. /driveway space, $25 per garage space Hot markets: $25 per surface /driveway space, $50 per garage space Vacancy 5% Operating 32%of revenue This is a standard, simplified assumption for multifamily rental Expenses housing. Financing and Return Assumptions Item Assumption Notes Maximum Loan 75%of total Actual loan terms will depend on the details of how the project Amount development cost is being financed, the developer's track record, and the Interest Rate 4.75% riskiness of the project. These assumptions are intended to Loan Term 30 years reflect a reasonable financing scenario for small-scale Required Debt 1.25 development. Service Coverage Ratio ECONorthwest 6 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 6 OF 13 Page 62 of 191 Item Assumption Notes Cash-on-Cash Cool markets: 5% Actual return requirements for equity investors will depend on a Return Warm markets: variety of factors specific to the developer and the project. We Requirements 6% assume those investing in a cooler market(who are likely to be Hot markets: 7% locals for rental properties of this scale)will have to be willing to accept a lower return than those working in a hot market. However, returns below 5% may not meet required debt service coverage ratios to secure a loan. Results and Findings This section summarizes our results and key findings from our analysis by topic. Part 1 : Impact of Parking Et FAR by Lot Size This analysis tests how variations in floor area ratio and parking(i.e., surface,garage, or on- street only) affect feasibility on a range of lot sizes.Note that in Part 1 of the analysis,we assume that the lot sizes tested are the same as the lot size for single-family homes in the zone and look at lot size only as a way to understand how the parking and building size vary with lot size. (Part 2 tests the impact of lot sizes that are larger than the minimum for single-family detached housing in the zone.) Key Findings: Unit Size and FAR Impacts FAR, lot size, and parking requirements interact with each other to determine the amount of floor area that can be built on the site,which drives the unit size. Unit size is an important driver of rents and costs.The optimal size range will vary by jurisdiction depending on market conditions and how costs (e.g., fees and SDCs) scale with different unit sizes. However, we observed several trends related to unit size: ■ Within the range of standards tested,when the lot size for triplex/fourplex is the same as the minimum for single-family detached homes, the differences in feasibility are mostly driven by differences in the potential rent vs. development cost at different unit sizes. (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 on page 9.) Very small units generally showed low financial returns, though the threshold for fourplexes was lower than that for triplexes: • Fourplexes: Average unit sizes under about 700 square feet generally were not feasible. • Triplexes: Average unit sizes under about 850 square feet generally were not feasible. • For small lots,a higher FAR is important for allowing units that are both physically and financially feasible. • In some cases,we see decreasing returns to scale with larger unit sizes. For example, with some prototypes, larger units without garages show lower returns than smaller units with garages. However, developers do not have to build to the maximum FAR ECONorthwest 7 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 7 OF 13 Page 63 of 191 allowed. Consequently,higher FAR allowances do not necessarily create problems for feasibility,but they may not help past a certain point in some markets. Key Findings: Parking Impacts Our analysis shows that the cost of providing parking(up to 2 spaces in total for a triplex or fourplex) is not in itself a major issue for feasibility.The returns for prototypes with 2 off- street spaces are generally only slightly below those with no parking if the average unit size is roughly the same. However,the space dedicated to parking can be an issue if it limits building size. If more parking spaces were required than we tested (e.g., 1 space per unit), this would have more impacts on the possible building footprint and could trigger regulations that require more circulation area (e.g., requiring a turnaround area so that cars do not back out of the driveway). On small lots,even requiring more than 1 parking space per development creates feasibility issues because it limits the potential building footprint. Garages may limit the impact on building footprint,but if they count toward a limited FAR allowance, they take up too much of the limited floor area for a smaller development to make sense in most cases. Since garages are not required—although in some cases they reduce the estimated financial returns—a developer could choose surface parking if that offered a better return and was physically feasible on the site. Other Findings • Triplexes generally show lower returns than fourplexes. Although they enable somewhat larger units, some of the fixed costs (e.g.,land) are spread across fewer units. Triplexes may only be able to meet targeted investment returns for a few regulatory scenarios in any given market. • Triplexes and fourplexes will likely be challenging to develop in cool markets under any of the regulatory scenarios tested. The lower financial returns anticipated in these areas will likely mean a smaller pool of potential builders and investors and challenges securing financing. Feasibility Results by Regulatory Scenario Exhibits 1 and 2 on the following page show the following for each regulatory scenario (i.e., each combination of lot size,FAR,number of units,and parking that we tested): • Maximum average unit size (pale yellow bars). • Estimated financial returns for each set of market conditions(blue diamonds for cool markets, orange circles for warm markets, and red triangles for hot markets). • Target financial returns for each set of market conditions (blue dashed line for cool markets, orange dashed line for warm markets, and red dashed line for hot markets). Where the estimated returns exceed the target returns for that market(shown as the marker being above the dashed line of same color), this indicates a greater likelihood of financial feasibility for that development. This analysis is intended to provide a rough indication of ECONorthwest 8 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 8 OF 13 Page 64 of 191 feasibility challenges,not to provide a precise calculation of the feasibility of a specific situation. Exhibit 1: Fourplex Results Summary by Lot Size, FAR, and Parking Fourplex unit size and feasibility by lot size,FAR,and parking 10.0% 2,500 9.0% 2,250 ,00 8. iiii1t!x :'::. 4 6. 1,5 I 1,250 111111111111111111111111111 Unit sire to to 3.0°% CZI,UU!UtI■■!I!! 1 i 11 i i 111 75000 ♦ Financial ReWrn-Cod Return Financial Rern-Warm it2,0% 1,mairrn !� 11111 i 1 i i 1111 i 500 -• •-Target FinanclReturn al rCodd 1.0% - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 _ _ _ 250 ---Target Return-Warm ---Target Return-Hot 0.0% • • 3 0` 3 0` a o` s % o` s % o 8 % o` 8 % o` 8 % o` s % 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 FOURPLEX 3,000SF LOT FOURPLEX,5,000SFLOT FOURPLEX,7,500SF LOT FOURPLEX 10,000 SF LOT Source: ECONorthwest Exhibit 2: Triplex Results Summary by Lot Size, FAR, and Parking Triplex unit size and feasibility by lot size,FAR,and parking 10.0%7 - 2,500 9.0% - 2,250 8.0%- - 2,000 m 7.0% • - - -. - - 1,750 4 6.0% 1 t • 1,500 % ,i• @ • H c 5.0% - - - • • 0 -- -_. - 1,500 • • • • . ! � • =ji ' IJit • ♦ Financial ReWrn-Cod c3.0% ♦ - • 750 • Financial ReWrn-Warm ii I ♦ • ♦ Financial ReWrn-Hot 2.0°� - - 500 ---Target Return-Cod --Target Return-Warm 10% �� • - 250 _ -Target Return-Hot 0.0% I I l i I ii ITITTTITT oa a t i N_ N ! N N 3 0` 8 o` o` 5 % o` 5 % o 2 % o` 5 % o` 2 % o` `g % 0 45 '2 °o °0 3 3 3 6 € 1 LL 8 LL 1 LL f LL ' LL LL 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 I 0.6 0.7 0.6 TRIPLEX 3,000 SF LOT TRIPLEX 5,000 SF LOT TRIPLEX 7,500 SF LOT TRIPLEX 10,000 SF LOT Source: ECONorthwest ECONorthwest 9 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 9 OF 13 Page 65 of 191 Part 2: Impact of Minimum Lot Size Relative to Single Family Minimum In Part 2 of our analysis,we compared the 5,000, 7,500, and 10,000 square foot lot sizes with an assumed minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet for single-family detached housing (1, 1.5, and 2 times the minimum lot size for single-family detached,respectively). The purpose of this analysis was to see how the requirement for larger lots than required for single-family detached impact feasibility. (See discussion on page 4 for more on how we addressed land costs in this analysis.) Key Findings: Impacts of Increased Land Cost For lot sizes more than 1 times the single-family detached lot size but less than 2 times that lot size, the land cost increase is probably non-linear. The main issue in an infill situation would be a reduced supply of lots (see discussion on page 12).If it is not possible to build 2 houses on a lot, triplex or fourplex development is still competing against the returns of 1 single-family home. This is less clear in a greenfield situation where the increase in land cost might be more linear. As noted on page 4, if the lot size for a triplex or fourplex is 2, 3, or 4 times the lot size for a single-family home,the land cost will increase by a roughly corresponding amount. Our analysis shows that increased land cost(50%to 100% above the cost of 1 single-family lot for a lot larger than the minimum for single family) has a pronounced negative impact on feasibility,particularly in hot and warm markets where land costs are higher. (See Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 on page 11.) A higher FAR helps mitigate this to some degree but it is generally not enough to overcome the increase in land costs. While we did not test lot sizes 3 to 4 times the minimum for single-family detached homes,we anticipate that those would show an even more pronounced impact on feasibility because of the corresponding increase in land costs. Feasibility Results by Regulatory Scenario Exhibits 3 and 4 on the following page show the following for each regulatory scenario, like Exhibits 1 and 2: • Maximum average unit size possible(pale yellow bars). • Estimated financial returns for each set of market conditions(blue diamonds for cool markets, orange circles for warm markets, and red triangles for hot markets). • Target financial returns for each set of market conditions (blue dashed line for cool markets, orange dashed line for warm markets, and red dashed line for hot markets). Where the estimated returns exceed the target returns for that market(shown as the marker being above the dashed line of same color), this indicates a greater likelihood of financial feasibility for that development. As noted previously, this analysis is intended to provide a rough indication of feasibility challenges,not to provide a precise calculation of the feasibility of a specific situation, given that the financial inputs are illustrative rather than precisely calibrated for any given location. ECONorthwest 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 10 OF 13 Page 66 of 191 Exhibit 3: Fourplex Results Summary by Multiple of Minimum Lot Size Fourplex unit size and feasibility by multiple of min.lot size,FAR,and parking 10.0% 2,500 9.0% 2,250 8.0% . . . . 2,000 V ♦ • A • V 6.0%--�= ------- • - 1,500 m ,- 5.0% • ---- - 1,250 g go ¢ 4.0% Low `` Unit size i ♦ Financial Return-Cod (53 a 3.0% 750 • Financial Return-Warm ii ♦ Financial Return-Hot 2.0% _ 500 ---Target Return-Cod . , , , , ---Target Return-Warm 10% —IF 250 ---Target Return-Hot 0.0% I • N N t N 31 I N N N N 51 N N N t N 51 8 m O 8 roll O nL O & O c0 O m O 'C 2 'C 2 'C 2 'C 2 'C 2 2 aaaaa .. 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 FOURPLEX 5,000 SF LOT(lx min lot size) FOURPLEX 7,500SF LOT(1.5x min lot size) FOURPLEX 10,000SF LOT(2x min lot size) Source: ECONorthwest Exhibit 4: Triplex Results Summary by Multiple of Minimum Lot Size Triplex unit size and feasibility by multiple of min.lot size,FAR,and parking 10.0% 2,500 9.0% 2,250 8.0% - - 2,000 m 7.0% • 1,750 V H c 5.0% - — iii •-,— ----.--..---- 1,500 � --- -------— 1,250 tirt 4 0% : • — S 000 ItUnit size • . Financial Return-Cod (53 a • Financial Return-Warm c 3.0% - - • — 750 iT_ 2 0% , I I ♦ A 500 -♦ Financial Return- Hot _ --Target Return-Codof * • ---Target Return-Warm 10% , 1111 — 250 ---Target Return-Hot 13 N N ! N N ! C N ! N N 'T N N ! N 2 d O 'C t 0 x O 'C roll ' 'C 'C O i O 'C 'C bD 7 aD 7 EO 7, EO 7, h0 00 ¢ LL ¢ LL cc LL cc LL ¢ LL cc LL 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 TRIPLEX 5,000 SF LOT(lx min lot size) TRIPLE)(,7,500 SF LOT(1.5x min lot size) TRIPLEX,10,000 SF LOT (2x min lot size) Source: ECONorthwest ECONorthwest 11 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 11 OF 13 Page 67 of 191 Key Findings: Reduced Land Availability To estimate how much minimum lot sizes greater than those for single-family homes might affect the availability of lots for development in an infill situation,we used readily available data from two example areas zoned for single-family homes to measure the prevalence of lots at various multiples of the minimum size for single-family homes in that zone. The two sample areas we tested illustrate opposite ends of a spectrum: • The Eugene R-1 zone allows 14 dwelling units per net acre,which translates to a minimum of just over 3,000 square feet per single family home (though it is not described as a minimum lot size). The sample area was platted under different zoning rules;many lots are larger than the minimum allowed by the current R-1 zoning. • The Redmond R-1 zone has a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet, and there are relatively few larger lots in the sample area. As shown in Exhibit 5,more than 90%of the lots in the Eugene sample area are more than twice the minimum area required for a single-family home,but less than a quarter are more than 4 times the minimum required for a single-family home. In Redmond, less than half of the lots in the sample area were even 1.25 times the minimum lot size for single-family homes, and only 2%were 4 times the minimum lot size. Exhibit 5: Prevalence of Lots by Multiple of Minimum Lot Size Multiple of Min. Eugene R-1 Sample Area Redmond R-1 Sample Area Lot Size for Single-Family Lot Size(sf) #of %of Lots Lot Size(sf) #of %of Lots in Homes Lots in Sample Lots Sample 1 3,111 972 100% 9,000 858 100% 1.25 3,889 970 100% 11,250 349 41% 1.5 4,667 956 98% 13,500 176 21% 2 6,223 902 93% 18,000 69 8% 3 9,334 504 52% 27,000 25 3% 4 12,446 212 22% 36,000 17 2% Source: ECONorthwest analysis based on parcel and zoning data provided by the cities of Eugene and Redmond for prior (recent)projects. This shows that requiring lot sizes up to 2 times the minimum for single-family homes may not be a major issue from a land supply perspective in all communities,but it will be an issue in some communities. Requiring lot sizes that are 3 to 4 times the minimum for single- family detached homes will be a land supply issue for infill development in many communities. ECONorthwest 12 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 12 OF 13 Page 68 of 191 Conclusions In summary, if the goal is to maximize or ensure feasibility for triplex and fourplex development to the extent possible,we recommend the following options: • Scale FAR to minimum lot size, so that smaller lots are allowed higher FAR. This will ensure a reasonable average unit size even on small lots. • Set the minimum lot size for triplexes and fourplexes the same as for single-family detached homes in the zone. Requiring larger lots increases costs,decreases feasibility, and reduces the supply of lots where triplex and fourplex development is allowed. • Do not require more than 1 parking space per development in zones with a minimum lot size under 5,000 sq. ft., as fitting the parking on site reduces the buildable area for housing and may not allow a reasonable average unit size. Any changes to regulations that decrease efficiency of land relative to the scenarios evaluated in this analysis would have detrimental impacts to project viability for triplexes and fourplexes. ECONorthwest 13 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 13 OF 13 Page 69 of 191 A LAND USE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM Large & Metro Cities Model Code Parts 1 - 3 (REVISED DRAFT) DLCD Middle Housing Model Code DATE June 18, 2020 TO MHMC Model Code Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) FROM Matt Hastie, Cathy Corliss, and Kate Rogers,Angelo Planning Group CC Ethan Stuckmayer and Robert Mansolillo, DLCD Project Team Commentary: This memorandum combines Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the draft Large & Metro Cities Model Code (LMCMC): • Chapter 1. Combined Standards for All Middle Housing (Part 1).This chapter includes the Purpose, Applicability, Definitions, and Relationship to Other Regulations sections, which are proposed to be shared by all middle housing types.The draft code provisions have been revised following review at Model Code Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) meetings 4 and 5 and Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC) meetings 5 and 6. • Chapter 2. Duplexes (Part 2).This chapter includes proposed standards for duplexes and is the same as the draft Medium Cities Model Code. • Chapter 3.Triplexes and Quadplexes (Part 2). This chapter includes proposed standards for triplexes and quadplexes. The draft code provisions have been revised following review at MCTAC 5 and 6 and RAC 6 and 7. • Chapter 4.Townhouses (Part 3). This chapter includes proposed standards for townhouses. The draft code provisions have been revised following review at MCTAC 5 and 6 and RAC 6 and 7. A separate memo discussing initial ideas for cottage clusters is included in the MCTAC 7 packet. Draft model code provisions for cottage clusters will be incorporated into the next version of the draft LMCMC. ANGELO PLANNING GROUP angeloplanning.com 921 SW Washington Street,Suite 468 p:503.224.6974 Ppa1c 000 5 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 1 OF 25 f:503.227.3679 y Page 70 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 2 of 25 The tables in Chapters 1—4 include provisions organized into two columns (plus commentary for the MCTAC): 1. Model Code—The standards that will apply directly to proposals for middle housing development if jurisdictions do not adopt the required code amendments. These standards are consistent with the requirements and intent of HB 2001 and are intended to be straightforward and implementable by Large Cities (as defined in the house bill)throughout the state. 2. Minimum Compliance—The minimum standards that development codes must meet in order to comply with the text and intent of HB 2001.These are the standards against which DLCD will compare amended development codes to ensure they comply with state law. Ultimately, the LMCMC minimum compliance standards will be adopted directly into administrative rules, and the model code will be adopted by reference into administrative rules. Note:Revisions to the draft LMCMC that were made since the last MCTAC meeting appear in "track changes"mode. For ease of review, track changes mode is not used where commentary has been added or updated. op 1 giQ,ly��J(Jiigdle Housing Model CodATTACHMENT C/PAGE 2 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 71 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 3 of 25 Chapter 1. Combined Standards for All Middle Housing Sections: A. Purpose B. Definitions C. Applicability D. Relationship to Other Regulations Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Commentary A. Purpose The purpose of this model middle housing code ("code") is to Local governments are not required to include a purpose implement HB 2001, codified in ORS 197.758 et seq, by providing statement specific to provisions needed to implement siting and design standards for middle housing developed in areas and comply with HB 2001. zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single family dwellings. B. Definitions The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this code, -- -- notwithstanding other definitions in the development code: 1. "Common wall" "Common wall" means a wall or set of walls in a single structure No requirement, as long as definitions ensure consistent HB 2001's definition of"townhouse"uses the term "common wall;" shared by two or more dwelling units.The common wall must be application of middle housing standards. therefore, it is defined here. The proposed definition is consistent with shared for at least 25 percent of the length of the side of the those used by the Cities of Bend and Portland(and possibly others). If building of the dwelling units.The common wall may be any wall of needed, additional language can be added to refer to Oregon Building the building, including the walls of attached garages. code requirements for walls between housing units on separate lots or within separately owned components of the same structure. 2. "Constrained lands"Goal "Constrained landsGoal Protected Lands" means lands protected or For the purposes of determining areas in which triplexes, Update since MCTAC 6:This term has been renamed as "Goal Protected Protected Lands" designated pursuant to the following statewide planning goals: quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters must be Lands"and the minimum compliance standard has been updated. • Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open allowed, local governments may exclude "Goal Protected This definition is proposed to establish areas where middle housing Spaces; Lands".No requirements for this definition.Jurisdictions (besides duplexes)is not permitted by the model code. • Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; may allow middle housing on constrained lands to the extent they determine to be appropriate and consistent • Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; with statewide goal protection requirements. • Goal 16 Estuarine Resources; • Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; • Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes. 3. "Cottage cluster" "Cottage cluster" means a grouping of no fewer than four detached Same as model code, with the exception that the Update since MCTAC 6:The minimum compliance column has been dwelling units per acre, each with a footprint of less than 900 square individual units could be located on separate lots.Local fleshed out, but may need further refining following discussion of cottage feet, located on a single lot or parcel that includes a common governments must have a definition for cottage clusters clusters with the MCTAC. courtyard. that allows groupings of smaller detached units with a HB 2001 provides the definition of"cottage cluster,"but the draft model shared courtyard or open space. The definition must limit code narrows the definition to mean detached units on a single lot. Some the footprint of each detached dwelling unit to less than jurisdictions provide for cottage clusters on individual lots;however, this op giQ,ly�i�J(Jdle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 3 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 72 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 4 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Commentary 900 SF. The definition may provide greater flexibility than would be excessively complicated for the model code, as it requires land the model code, including allowing individual units on division, cross-access agreements, and other provisions that make a clear separate lots. and objective review path that could work in any jurisdiction very (See additional information in commentary.) challenging. However,for minimum compliance with HB 2001,jurisdictions may provide greater flexibility as long as the minimum standards are met. 4. "Detached single family dwelling" "Detached single family dwelling" means a detached structure on a No requirement, as long as definitions ensure consistent lot or parcel that is comprised of a single dwelling unit. Detached application of middle housing standards. single family dwellings may be constructed off-site, e.g., manufactured dwellings or modular homes. 5. "Duplex" "Duplex" means two dwelling units on a lot or parcel in any "Duplex" means two attached dwelling units on one lot Update since MCTAC 6:The duplex definition has been revised to allow configuration.a detached structurc on a lot or parcel that is or parcel.A large city may define a duplex to include two detached units in addition to attached. DLCD initiated this change as a comprised of two dwelling units. In instances where a structure detached dwelling units on one lot or parcel. result of testimony heard from TAC, RAC, and members of the public. This development can meet the definition of a duplex and also meets the revision will also be made to the Medium Cities Model Code. definition of a primary dwelling unit with an attached or internal accessory dwelling unit(ADU),the applicant shall specify at the time of application review whether the entire structuredevelopment is considered a duplex or a primary dwelling unit with an attached or internal ADU. 6. "Floor area" "Floor area" means the total area of all floors of a building. Floor If the jurisdiction has a definition of floor area, they may The definition of floor area clarifies which parts of a building are included area is measured for each floor from the exterior faces of a building use that definition in regulating middle housing. If a in the FAR calculation. The proposed definition is from the City of or structure. Floor area includes stairwells, ramps, shafts,chases, jurisdiction does not already have a definition of floor Portland; we suggest this definition because it is very specific, thereby and the area devoted to garages and structured parking. Floor area area, the definition must be the same as or similar to the avoiding confusion to the extent possible, and includes garages in the does not include the following: model code. floor area definition. Because garages can occupy a significant amount of • Areas where the elevation of the floor is 4 feet or more below space, we recommend including them in the FAR calculation in order to the adjacent right-of way; control a building's overall scale.Additionally, a sampling of Large Cities' • Roof area, including roof top parking; development codes revealed that it is more common to include garages in • Roof top mechanical equipment; and the floor area definition than to exclude them. • Roofed porches,exterior balconies, or other similar areas, unless they are enclosed by walls that are more than 42 inches in height for 75 percent or more of their perimeter 7. "Floor area ratio(FAR)" "Floor area ratio(FAR)" means the amount of floor area of a building If the jurisdiction applies FAR standards to middle Update since MCTAC 6:It was suggested that the OAR include a or structure in relation to the amount of site area,expressed in housing, a definition is required. The definition should be calculation method for FAR. This may be added in a subsequent draft. square feet. For example, a floor area ratio of 2 to 1 means two similar to the model code, but the jurisdiction could allow square feet of floor area for every one square foot of site area. portions of the site to be excluded from the calculation (e.g.,public utility easements). op gL�Q,ly�i�J(J dle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 4 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 73 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 5 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Commentary 8. "Infrastructure-constrained "Infrastructure-constrained landsdeficient ar as" means lots or No requirement for this definition. Pursuant to Section 4 Update since MCTAC 6:This term has been renamed as "Infrastructure- landsdeficient ar as" parcels that are not currently served by or os where the local of HB 2001, DLCD will define Infrastructure deficient constrained lands"to differentiate these areas from "infrastructure- government has identified water, sewer, storm drainage,or areas for the purposes of a city seeking an extension of deficient areas,"which are part of the infrastructure-based time transportation services and which cannot be remedied by future middle housing provision in infrastructure deficient extension request(IBTER)process. The definition has also been simplified development of middle housing on the subject lot or parcel. that arc areas.For the purposes of determining areas in which to mean lands with infrastructure constraints that cannot be remediated either significantly deficient or are expected to be significantly triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, and cottage clusters by future development of middle housing. deficient before December 31, 2023, but for which the local must be allowed, local governments may exclude This definition is proposed to establish another type of area where middle government has demonstrated that it is not possible to develop a "infrastructure constrained lands". housing(besides duplexes)is not permitted by the model code. plan and secure necessary financing and/or needed jurisdictional The proposed Applicability statement would exempt these infrastructure- consent for the necessary improvements as contemplated for the constrained lands from the requirement to allow middle housing(other infrastructure based time extension request(IBTER) process. In the than duplexes), as stated in Section C. case of transportation system constraints, degraded mobility standards(level of service, etc.) do not qualify an ar a as "infrastructure deficient." 9. "Lot or parcel" "Lot or parcel" means any legally created unit of land. Same as model code.Local governments must have a Update since MCTAC 6:The minimum compliance standard has been definition for lot and/or parcel that is the same as, or clarified. similar to, the model code definition. 10. "Middle housing" "Middle housing" means duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, cottage Same as model code.The OAR will use the same definition Update since MCTAC 6:The minimum compliance standard has been clusters, and townhouses. as the model code. Local governments are not required to clarified. have a definition for middle housing as lonq as each of HB 2001 provides the definition of"middle housing." housing types included in the OAR definition is defined. 11. "Quadplex" PREFERRED OPTION(2):"Quadplex" means four dwelling units on a Jurisdictions must define "quadplex" as four dwelling The MCTAC expressed the most support for the definition option that lot or parcel in any configuration. units on a lot.Jurisdictions must allow quadplexes to be allows both attached and detached triplexes and quadplexes, because of provided in an attached configuration but may allow the additional flexibility it affords. detached units as well. 12. "Townhouse" "Townhouse" means a dwelling unit constructed in a row of two or Jurisdictions must have a definition of"townhouse" (or HB 2001 provides the definition of"townhouse." more attached units,where each dwelling unit is located on an one of the alternative terms,such as rowhouse),that is individual lot or parcel and shares at least one common wall with an the same as or similar to the model code definition. At adjacent unit.A townhouse is also commonly called a "rowhouse," minimum,this housing type must be defined as attached "attached house," or"common-wall house." dwelling units on individual lots. 13. "Triplex" PREFERRED OPTION(2):"Triplex" means three dwelling units on a Jurisdictions must define "triplex" as three dwelling units See commentary for"quadplex"above. lot or parcel in any configuration. on a lot.Jurisdictions must allow triplexes to be provided in an attached configuration but may allow detached units as well. 14. "Townhouse project" "Townhouse project" means one or more townhouse structures Local governments may, but are not required to, have a This definition describes an overall townhouse development, as opposed constructed, or proposed to be constructed,together with the definition for townhouse project. to individual townhouse units.Some development standards in Chapter 4 development site where the land has been divided, or is proposed to apply to the townhouse project overall, whereas others apply to individual units or lots. op gL�Q,ly��J(Jidle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 5 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 74 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 6 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Commentary be divided,to reflect the townhouse property lines and the commonly owned property, if any. 15. "Zoned for residential use" "Zoned for residential use" means a zoning district in which Same as model code.The OAR will use the same definition Update since MCTAC 6:The minimum compliance standard has been residential dwellings are the primary use and which implements a as the model code. Local governments are not required to clarified. residential Comprehensive Plan map designation. have a definition as lonq as they comply with OAR This definition clarifies that the middle housing requirement only applies requirements to allow middle housing within areas zoned in residential zones. This is further clarified in the Applicability section. for residential use. C. Applicability - -- -- 1. Applicability of Code Sections. a. Code sections applicable to all middle housing types are: N/A This subsection of Applicability states which sections of the model code Chapter 1, Sections A. Purpose, B. Definitions, C.Applicability, are applicable to each type of housing. and D. Relationship to Other Regulations. [and potentially others] b. Code standards applicable to specific housing types are listed below: • Duplexes: Chapter 2. • Triplexes: Chapter 3. • Quadplexes: Chapter 3. • Cottage clusters:[list sections here]. • Townhouses: Chapter 4. 2. Applicability by Development a. Except as specified in subsection (b) of this section (C)(2),the Duplex—The standards of the code must allow for the Update since MCTAC 6:The model code has been updated to reflect the Type and Location. standards in this code allow for the following development on development of new duplexes and those created through new terminology for"goal protected"and"infrastructure-constrained" lots or parcels zoned for residential use that allow for the conversion of existing detached single-family dwelling on lands. The minimum compliance standards have also been fleshed out. development of detached single family dwellings: lots and parcels zoned for residential use that allow for This subsection establishes the following: • New duplexes and those created through conversion of the development of detached single family • Identifies where within "areas zoned for residential use"middle existing detached single family dwellings. dwellings.same as model code. housing must be allowed. • New triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and Other Housing Types—As with the model code, the o Clarifies that the provisions only apply in residential zones in townhouses, and those created through conversion of standards of the code must allow for the development of which detached single family dwellings are permitted. existing detached single family dwellings or duplexes. new triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses, and those created through conversion of o Per HB 2001, duplexes must be allowed on all residential lots and b. Exceptions.The standards in this code do not allow the parcels that allow SFD. following, unless otherwise permitted by the development code existing detached single family dwellings or duplexes on lots and parcels zoned for residential use that allow for o The proposed language for other middle housing types indicates through clear and objective standards, criteria, and procedures: that theyare not required to be allowed withingoal protected or the development of detached single family dwellings. q • On constrained goal-protected or infrastructure-constrained infrastructure-constrained lands "unless otherwise permitted by ILocal governments may use additionalother criteria to lands or within infrastructure deficient areas,the creation the jurisdiction through clear and objective standards, criteria, regulate where middle housing(other than duplexes)is of triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters,or townhouses, or allowed including but not limited to within areas zoned and procedures."This gives local jurisdictions the ability to the creation of more than two dwelling units on a single lot for residential use on goal protectedconstrained lands or identify conditions where they would be allowed in these areas, or parcel, including accessory dwelling units. and infrastructure constrained lands.dcficient areas. as opposed to a blanket prohibition. op gL�Q,ly�i�J(J dle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 6 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 75 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 7 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Commentary • On lands that are not zoned for residential use,the creation • Indicates that the standards apply to new construction as well as of middle housing.This includes lands zoned primarily for conversions of single family detached homes. commercial, industrial, agricultural, public, or mixed uses, • For lots or parcels within goal protected or infrastructure-constrained even if those zones allow for the development of detached lands, which only allow a duplex, the model code does not allow for single family dwellings. creation of more than two units, including ADUs(i.e., an SFD with an ADU cannot be converted into a duplex unless the jurisdiction allows it). This is consistent with the MCMC. D. Relationship to Other Regulations -- -- -- 1. Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between this code and other standards Same as model code.No specific requirement, as long as Update since MCTAC 6:The minimum compliance standard has been applicable to a middle housing development,the standards of this local governments address conflicts in the development clarified. code control. code. Proposed language is the same as the draft Medium Cities Model Code, except it refers to all middle housing. 2. Public Works Standards. Clear and objective exceptions to public works standards granted to Duplex—If a local government or other utility service For public works standards, it is appropriate to grant the same exceptions single family dwellings shall also be granted to duplexes. provider grants clear and objective exceptions to public to duplexes that apply to single family dwellings, because duplexes must works standards to single family detached development, be allowed on any lot or parcel that allows a detached single family those same exceptions must also be granted to duplexes dwelling. However, it may not be appropriate to grant the same permitted under this section. (draft OAR 660-046-0105.7 exceptions to other middle housing types, which need not be permitted on for Med Cities) any single family lot or parcel, and which represent higher-intensity Other Housing Types—N/A development. 3. Protective Measures. Middle housing shall comply with protective measures(plans, Same as model codc.Local governments may regulate Update since MCTAC 6:The minimum compliance standard has been policies, or regulations) adopted pursuant to statewide land use Middle Housing to comply with protective measures clarified. planning goals(e.g., environmental and natural hazard protections). (including plans,policies, and regulations)adopted and This clarifies that requirements of HB 2001 do not override local acknowledged pursuant to statewide land use planning protections for natural resources, natural hazards, or other regulatory goals. protections adopted pursuant to Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. This could mean,for example, limiting building footprints in wetland areas, ensuring middle housing types are reviewed for historic compatibility in historic districts, or limiting building heights within the Willamette Greenway. op gL�Q,ly�i�J(J dle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 7 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 76 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 8 of 25 Chapter 2. Duplexes Sections: A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process B. Development Standards C. Design Standards D. Duplex Conversions Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance A. Permitted Uses and Duplexes are permitted outright on lots or parcels zoned for residential use that allow for the development of Local governments must permit duplexes outright on each lot or parcel zoned for residential use that allows Approval Process detached single family dwellings. Duplexes are subject to the same approval process as that for detached for the development of detached single family structures. Local governments must apply the same approval single family dwellings in the same zone and are subject only to clear and objective standards, approval process to duplexes as detached single family dwellings in the same zone. Local governments may adopt criteria, conditions, and procedures.Alternatively, an applicant may choose to submit an application for a and apply only clear and objective standards,conditions, and procedures regulating the development of duplex subject to discretionary standards and criteria adopted in accordance with ORS 197.307, if such a duplexes pursuant to OAR 660-008-0015. (draft OAR 660-046-0104 for Med Cities) process is available. B. Development Except as specified below, duplexes shall meet all clear and objective development standards that apply to -- Standards detached single family dwellings in the same zone (including, but not limited to, minimum and maximum lot size, minimum and maximum setbacks, and building height), unless those standards conflict with this code. The following development standards are invalid and do not apply to duplexes being developed on lots or parcels zoned for residential use that allow the development of a detached single family dwelling: 1. Maximum The jurisdiction's pre-existing density maximums and minimum lot sizes for duplexes do not apply. For the purposes of calculating density, if a local government applies density maximums in a zone, it may Density. not apply those maximums to the development of duplexes. (draft OAR 660-046-0105.2.a for Med Cities) 2. Setbacks. A minimum front setback of greater than 20 feet or a minimum rear setback of greater than 15 feet except for A local government may not require setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single family those minimum setbacks applicable to garages and carports. structures in the same zone. (draft OAR 660-046-0105.3.a for Med Cities) 3. Off-street Any off-street parking requirement. A local government may not require more than a total of two(2)off-street parking spaces. (draft OAR 660- Parking. 046-0105.5.a for Med Cities) C. Design Standards New duplexes shall meet all clear and objective design standards (e.g., entry orientation,window coverage, Update since MCTAC6:Because the duplex definition has been revised to allow detached units, the model articulation, etc.)that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, unless those standards code may need to address the applicability of a jurisdiction's single family design standards. For example, conflict with this code. the code may need to specify whether single family window coverage standards would apply to one or both detached units. This will be addressed in a subsequent draft as needed. Any design standards that apply only to duplexes are invalid. Local governments are not required to apply design standards to new duplexes. However, if the local government chooses to apply design standards to new duplexes, it may only apply all clear and objective design standards that the local government applies to detached single family structures in the same zone. A local government may not apply design standards to duplexes created through internal conversion of a single family detached structure. (draft OAR 660-046-0106 for Med Cities) op giiQ,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 8 OF 25 June 18,2020 �J(J Page 77 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 9 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance D. Duplex Conversions Conversion of an existing detached single family structure to a duplex is allowed, pursuant to Chapter 1, Identical toSamc as model code language. Section C(Applicability), provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards. Chapter 3. Triplexes and Quadplexes Sections: A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process B. Development Standards C. Design Standards D. Triplex and Quadplex Conversions Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance A. Permitted Uses and Approval Commentary:Proposed language is the same as the draft Medium Cities Model Code, except with references to Update since MCTAC 6:This standard has been updated to be more consistent with the draft Process triplexes and quadplexes. OAR for medium cities. Further refinement may be needed. Same as modcl codc.Local governments must permit triplexes and quadplexes outright in areas Triplexes and quadplexes are permitted outright wherever they are allowed as provided in Chapter 1, Section C zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single family structures. (Applicability).Triplexes and quadplexes are subject to the same approval process as that for detached single Local governments must apply the same approval process to triplexes and quadplexes as family dwellings in the same zone and are subject only to clear and objective standards, approval criteria, detached single family dwellings in the same zone. Local governments may adopt and apply conditions, and procedures.Alternatively, an applicant may choose to submit an application for a triplex or only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of quadplex subject to discretionary standards and criteria adopted in accordance with ORS 197.307, if such a triplexes and quadplexes pursuant to OAR 660 008 0015. process is available. B. Development Standards Commentary:Similar to the Medium Cities Model Code, we propose subjecting triplexes and quadplexes to all Local governments are not required to have an applicability statement. 1. Applicability. clear and objective standards that apply to single family dwellings, unless the model code provides different standards. a. Triplexes and quadplexes shall meet: • The standards in subsections (2)through (9) of this section (B). • All other clear and objective development standards that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, unless those standards conflict with this code and except as specified in subsection (1)(b)of this section (B). b. The following standards are invalid and do not apply to triplexes or quadplexes allowed by this code: • Maximum lot coverage or minimum landscape area standards. op gL�Q,ly�i�J(Jdle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 9 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 78 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 10 of 25 • The jurisdiction's development standards that apply only to triplexes, quadplexes, or multifamily development. 2. Number of Units. Commentary:This provision is intended to clarify that the model code does not allow the creation or conversion Local governments may allow more than four units on a lot,if they so choose. of a quadplex from a single family house that has an existing ADU(thus creating more than four units on a lot). However, conversion of a house with an ADU into a triplex(thus creating four units on a lot) would be allowed. With detached units allowed, there would be no operational difference between a quadplex and a triplex with an ADU, so the model code should not prohibit that. This code does not allow for the creation of more than four(4) dwelling units on a lot, including accessory dwelling units. 3. Minimum Lot Size. Update since MCTAC 6:Based on comments from the MCTAC and analysis by ECONorthwest and SERA Architects, Update since MCTAC 6:Based on results of the feasibility analysis, minimum compliance has the project team revised its recommendation so that the minimum lot size for a triplex/quadplex is the same as been updated to prevent jurisdictions from requiring larger minimum lot sizes for triplexes or for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone, regardless of building size. (This was Option 1 in the quadplexes than for detached single family dwellings. MCTAC5 draft.) ECONorthwest's financial analysis concluded that requiring larger lots increases costs, decreases The minimum lot size must be no less than the minimum lot size for a single family dwelling in feasibility, and reduces the supply of lots where triplex and quadplex development is allowed. the same zone, and must not exceed XX square feet. RECOMMENDED OPTION(1):The minimum lot size for a triplex or quadplex is the same as the minimum lot size The minimum lot size must not exceed the minimum lot size for a detached single family for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone. dwelling in the same zone. PREFERRED OPTION(4):The minimum lot size is based on the gross floor ar a (GFA)of the triplex or quadplcx as mg-e-c-A-eel-i-n-s-u-la-secti-e-n-s-(--3-)-(-a-)-a-Re1414)-e-f-thi-s-s-e-c-ti-e-n-(B). Internal conversions arc exempt from the standards in subsection (3)(b). a. If the GFA is no larger than 2,800 sf,the minimum lot size is the same as the minimum lot size for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone; b. If the GFA is over 2,800 sf,the minimum lot size is calculated as a percentage of the minimum lot size for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone as follows: • hex: [125/150] percent; and ■ Quadplex: [150/200] percent. 4. Minimum Lot Width. Commentary:The project team recommends deferring to the jurisdiction's standards for detached single family A minimum lot width standard is not required. However, if a jurisdiction applies a minimum lot dwellings. width standard to tri/quad development it may not be wider than the standard for a single- family detached dwelling in the same zone. RECOMMENDED OPTION(1):The minimum lot width for a triplex or quadplex is the same as the minimum lot width for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone. 5. Maximum Density. Commentary:This issue has been a key topic of discussion amongst the RAC and project team, and some Same as model code.For the purposes of calculating density, if a local government applies RAC/MCTAC members have expressed concerns about allowing four times the density in single-family zones. density maximums in a zone, it may not apply those maximums to the development of Additional input from the MCTAC is welcome. triplexes or quadplexes. (consistent with draft OAR 660-046-0120.2 for Med Cities) op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 10 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 79 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 11 of 25 The maximum density for triplexes and quadplexes shall be determined by the minimum lot size as provided in subsection (3)of this section (B).The jurisdiction's pre-existing density maximums do not apply. 6. Setbacks. Triplexes and quadplexes shall be subject to the same minimum and maximum setback standards that are A local government may not require setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached applicable to detached single family dwellings in the same zone. Minimum front setbacks greater than 20 feet single family structures in the same zone. (draft OAR 660-046-0105.3.a for Med Cities) and minimum rear setbacks greater than 15 feet are invalid, except for those minimum setbacks applicable to garages and carports. 7. Height. Update since MCTAC 6:A cap on a jurisdiction's applicable height maximum has been added, so that at least two Triplexes and quadplexes may not be subject to lower maximum height standards than those stories are allowed(consistent with the draft standards for townhouses).A definition for"story"and/or applicable to detached single family structures in the same zone except a maximum height of calculation method for building height may be needed. — less than 25 feet or two stories is invalid.: (See general statement under Section B.} Triplexes and quadplexes are subject to the same maximum height as applicable to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, except a maximum height of less than 25 feet or two stories is invalid. 8. OPTIONS FOR REGULATING SCALE/BULK: Based on input from the MCTAC, the project team recommends using Maximum Floor Area Ratio(FAR) to regulate the scale or bulk of triplexes and Commentary:Minimum compliance standards should allow, but not require, local governments quadplexes. FAR is a ratio of the floor area in the structure to the square footage of the site.A maximum FAR standard works by limiting the size of a to regulate scale or bulk using provisions such as floor area ratio, lot coverage, or unit size. building(or buildings)in proportion with the size of the lot.A primary advantage of FAR is that it balances compatibility and flexibility. FAR ensures DLCD is still developing OAR language that will limit the allowable bulk/scale controls so they relatively consistent size of buildings but provides flexibility in how floor area is distributed across the site and across multiple units. do not cause unreasonable cost or delay. Bulk generally refers to the relative size, volume, or massing of a building.Scale generally refers to how people perceive the size of a building compared to other buildings or forms. Bulk and scale are often regulated to avoid stark contrasts between adjacent buildings or all buildings in a neighborhood or district. Regulating building scale or bulk may be appropriate because triplexes and quadplexes are more likely to maximize the buildable envelope on the site, which may not be compatible with single family neighborhoods. RECOMMENDED OPTION(2): Update since MCTAC 6:Based on comments from the MCTAC and analysis by ECONorthwest and SERA Architects, See general commentary above. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) the project team recommends Option 2b, which scales the allowable FAR based on the minimum lot size in the zone. ECONorthwest's financial analysis supports this recommendation because it ensures a reasonable average unit size even on small lots. We also recommend tweaking the scale slightly. This would have the effect of allowing higher FAR in some zones. The revised scale would allow: • 0.9 FAR in zones with a 3,000 sf minimum lot size(3,000 sf is a common standard) • 0.7 FAR in zones with a 5,000 sf minimum lot size(5,000 sf is also common). We also included an alternative set of FAR figures, which would allow even higher FAR, similar to those recommended by Elizabeth Decker and others. We welcome MCTAC input on these options. • OPTION 2a:The maximum floor area ratio for all buildings onsite, cumulatively, is 0.6 to 1. • RECOMMENDED OPTION(2b):The maximum floor area ratio for all buildings onsite,cumulatively, is based on the minimum lot size for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone, as provided below: Minimum Lot Size in Zone I Maximum FAR Less than 3,000 sf or less 0.9 to 1 Alt: 1.4 to 1 op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 11 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 80 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 12 of 25 More than 3,000 sf or more but less 0.7 to 1 Alt: 1.1 to 1 than, up to and including 5,000 sf More than 5,000 sf or more but less 0.6 to 1 than 20,000 sf Alt: 5,000—10,000 sf Alt: 0.9 to 1 Alt: 10,000 sf Alt:0.5 to 1 20,000 sf or more 0.4 to 1 9. Off-street Parking. Update since MCTAC 6: We added a fourth option based on the results of the feasibility analysis by Triplex—A local government may not require more than a total of three(3) off-street parking ECONorthwest and SERA Architects. The recommendation resulting from that analysis was that more than 1 spaces. parking space per development should not be required in zones with a minimum lot size under 5,000 sq.ft., as Quadplex—A local government may not require more than a total of four(4) off-street parking fitting the parking on site reduces the buildable area for housing and may not allow a reasonable average unit spaces. size. We also eliminated Option 3 but retained Options 1 and 2 for further consideration by the MCTAC. Nothing in this section precludes a local government from allowing on street parking credits to • OPTION 1: No off-street parking is required for a triplex or quadplex. satisfy off-street parking requirements. (draft OAR 660-046-0105.5.b for Med Cities) • OPTION 2: a. Required Off-street Parking.The minimum number of required off-street parking spaces is: i. For a triplex,one(1)space; ii. For a quadplex,two (2)spaces. A credit for on-street parking shall be granted for some or all the required off-street parking as provided in Subsection b. No additional parking spaces shall be required for conversion of a single family detached home to a triplex or quadplex. b. On-Street Credit. If on-street parking spaces meet all the standards in Subsections i-iv below,they shall be counted toward the minimum off-street parking requirement. i. On-street parking must be allowed on the side of the street where the space is to be provided. ii. The space must be a minimum of 22 feet long; iii. The space must be abutting the subject site; and iv. The space must not obstruct a required sight distance area. • OPTION 3:The total number of off street parking spaces required for a triplex or quadplex is the same as the total number of off street parking spaces required for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone. {Note: The on street parking credit could be offered in conjunction with this option as well.) • OPTION 4: The minimum number of required off-street parking spaces is based on the minimum lot size for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone,as provided below: o Zones with minimum lot size less than 5,000 sf: one (1)off-street parking space per development. o Zones with a minimum lot size of 5,000 sf or more:XX off-street parking spaces per development. op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 12 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 81 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 13 of 25 C. Design Standards Commentary:Our recommendation is to regulate four basic design elements for triplexes and quadplexes:(1) Commentary:Minimum compliance for design standards should allow, but not require, local 1. Applicability. entry orientation, (2) windows, (3)garages and off-street parking areas, and(4)driveway approaches. For all governments to apply design standards to new triplexes and quadplexes, as long as they do not other design elements, we propose deferring to the jurisdiction's standards for single family dwellings. We also cause unreasonable cost or delay. The design standards of the model code are a "reasonable" recommend prohibiting local mandates for garages or carports. safe harbor for communities. a. New triplexes and quadplexes, including those created by adding building square footage on a site occupied by an existing dwelling,shall meet: • The design standards in subsections(2)through (5) of this section (C); and • All other clear and objective design standards that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, unless those standards conflict with this code and except as specified in subsection (1)(b) of this section (C). b. The following standards are invalid and do not apply to triplexes or quadplexes allowed by this code: • Mandates for construction of a garage or carport. • Any design standards that apply only to triplexes, quadplexes, or multifamily development. 2. Entry Orientation. Update since MCTAC 6: The project team recommends essentially merging Options 1 -4. This approach offers the -- most flexibility by allowing units to face the street, to be at a 45 degree angle, to face a common open space, or to face a porch, and exempts units separated from the street by other units. We also simplified the standards to make them less prescriptive. • OPTION 1:At I ast one main entrance for ach triplex or quadplcx structure must face a street property line. (Adapted from Tigard's Quad standards.) • OPTION2:At 4eest e,RC mai+n-entrance for each triplex or quadplcx structure must be oriented toward a street,front lot line, or common open space that is adjacent to the street. (Adapted from Salem's standards for three and four family uses.) • RECOMMENDED OPTION(3):At least one main entrance for each triplex or quadplex structure that is not separated from the street property line by a dwelling must: a. Be within 8 feet of the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit; and b. Either: i. Face the street-1 ii. Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the street;er iii. Face a common open space that is adjacent to the street; or iv++. Open onto a porch.The porch must: (A) Be at least 25 square feet in area; and (B) Have at least one entrance facing the street; orand have a roof. (C) Have a roof that is: • No m „than 1 2 feet above the floor of the p rch• and op 1 giiQ,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 13 OF 25 June 18,2020 �J(J Page 82 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 14 of 25 ■ ar a covered with a solid roof, or by having the entire ar a covered with a trellis or other open material if no more than 70 percent of the ar a of the material is open. Figure 1. Options for Entrance Standards, City of Portland Figure 110-6 Figure 110-5 Main Entrance Opening onto a Porch Main Entrance Facing the Street I I I GARAGE DWELLING GARAGE DWELLING I UNIT Main I UNIT entrance I I I Pain I I entrance PORCH a"max_ � I -- Porch' Longest street-facing wall of dwelling unit l entry h. Front lot fine I Front lot line + - — - — — - — — - — + + — — - - - - --- — + Sidewalk Sidewalk • STREET STREET • OPTION 4:(This is not a standalone option, but could be combined with any of Options 1 3.)Triplexes or quadplexes separated from the street property line by a dwelling arc exempt from meeting the entry orientation standard. 3. Windows. Commentary: We suggest a modest minimum window coverage standard for triplexes and quadplexes. Windows -- help create more interesting facades as well as enabling more "eyes on the street,"which can have benefits for crime prevention and perceptions of safety in residential areas, and allowing more natural light into the interior of the home. We recommend exempting facades separated from the street by another dwelling. A minimum of 15 percent of the area of all street-facing facades must include windows or entrance doors. Window area is the aggregate area of the glass within each window, including any interior grids, mullions, or transoms. Door area is the area of the portion of a door that moves and does not include the frame. Facades separated from the street property line by a dwelling are exempt from meeting this standard. 4. Garages and Off-street Update since MCTAC 6: The team's current preference is for Option 2, but we retained all three options in the Parking Areas. draft. The advantage of Option 2 is that it is more clearly defined than Option 1 and it is less restrictive than Option 3(which limits garage width to 50%of building width instead of frontage width and regulates the garage setback in relation to the dwelling unit.) The way in which vehicle parking is integrated into a development has a substantial impact on the appearance of the development from the street. We propose standards that limit the width of parking areas and/or garages, and potentially that regulate how close garages can be to the street, relative to the dwelling units. The intent is to promote a pedestrian friendly environment by limiting the dominance of vehicle storage on the site. Three optional approaches are presented below. F' �p 1 gL�Q,lyj�J(Jidle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 14 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 83 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 15 of 25 • OPTION 1:Off-street vehicle use areas shall not exceed 50 percent of the buildable width along each street. (Adapted from Salem's standards for three-and four family uses. Note: We may need to include the method of measurement if this option is selected.) • RECOMMENDED OPTION(2):Garages on the front facade and off-street parking areas in the front yard are permitted in compliance with the standards in subsections (a) and (b) of this subsection (C)(4). Garages and off-street parking areas that are separated from the street property line by a dwelling are exempt from meeting these standards. a. Outdoor on-site parking and maneuvering areas shall not exceed a total of forty feet wide or fifty percent of the lot frontage,whichever is less; and b. The combined width of all garages shall not exceed forty feet or fifty percent of the lot frontage, whichever is less. (Adapted from Oregon City's standards for 3-4 plexes. Note: We may need to include the method of measurement if this option is selected.) • OPTION 3:Garage Door Standards. Garages that are separated from the street property line by a dwelling are exempt from meeting these standards. a. The maximum combined garage door width facing the street is 50 percent of the total building width. b. In addition to complying with the front setbacks for the respective zoning districts,the front of the garage or carport can be no closer to the front lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit that encloses livable space, except that: i. If there is a covered front porch,the garage or carport can extend up to five feet in front of the enclosed livable space, but no further than the front of the porch. ii. A garage or carport may extend up to 10 feet in front of the enclosed livable space if there is enclosed livable space or a covered balcony above at least a portion of the garage or carport. (Adapted from Bend's standards for duplexes and triplexes.) 5. Driveway Approach. Update since MCTAC 6: The driveway approach standards have been revised to:(1)eliminate unnecessary language limiting the number of driveways to three for triplexes or four for quadplexes, as it is very unlikely that more than three or four driveways would be built;and(2)to defer to the jurisdiction's driveway spacing standards for local streets and access standards for arterials or collectors. Similar to proposed garage and parking area standards, we suggest limiting driveways for triplexes and quadplexes. The proposed standards are adapted from Bend's standards for duplexes and triplexes. When applied to corner lots, these provisions currently are not entirely consistent with the objective of having at least one entrance fronting the adjacent street. To the extent this is a priority, additional changes may be needed. Note: Bend allows detached duplexes and triplexes,so these standards should work for detached units. Triplexes may have a maximum of[three] driveway approaches and quadplexes may have a maximum of[four] :Driveway approaches must comply with the following: op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 15 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 84 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 16 of 25 a. The total width of all driveway approaches must not exceed 32 feet per frontage, as measured at the property line. For lots or parcels with more than one frontage, see subsection (5)(c)of this subsection (C). b. Driveway approaches may be separated when located on a local street. If approaches are separated, they must meet the jurisdiction's driveway spacing standards applicable to local streets.bc separated by a minimum of seven feet. c. In addition, lots or parcels with more than one frontage must comply with the following: i. Lots or parcels must access the street with the lowest classification. For lots or parcels abutting an improved or improvable alley, access must be taken from the alley. (Note: "improvable"may need to be defined for this standard to be clear and objective.) ii. Lots or parcels with frontages only on collectors and/or arterial streets must meet the jurisdiction's access standards applicable to collectors and/or arterials.rnay have one driveway approach. iii. Triplexes and quadplexes on lots or parcels with frontages only on local streets may have two driveway approaches not exceeding 32 feet in total width on one frontage or one maximum 16-foot- wide driveway approach per frontage. D. Conversions to Triplex and Internal conversion of an existing detached single family structure or duplex to a triplex or quadplex is allowed, Identical toSame as model code language. Quadplex pursuant to Chapter 1, Section C(Applicability), provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards. Chapter 4. Townhouses Sections A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process B. Development Standards C. Design Standards General Commentary:ECONorthwest and SERA Architects are analyzing potential economic and design feasibility issues associated with key development and design standards for townhouses. We will present initial results from that analysis at MCTAC 7 and in additional materials provided to the MCTAC between meetings. Some of the draft standards and recommendations are likely to be revised based on the results of the analysis. Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance A. Permitted Uses Commentary: The draft provisions for townhouses are the same as those for duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, except for the underlined text. Because Same as model code.Locafgovernments must permit townhouses and Approval townhouses typically involve land divisions, the different permitting processes need to be reflected. This section may need to be further fleshed out for outright in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the Process subsequent drafts. development of detached single family structures. Local governments must apply the same approval process to townhouse structures as applied to detached single family 1 6L�Q,ly�iUUdle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 16 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 85 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 17 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Townhouse projects are permitted outright wherever they are allowed as provided in Chapter 1,Section C(Applicability).Townhouse structures are dwellings in the same zone.Creation of new lots or parcels as subject to the same approval process as that for detached single family dwellings in the same zone. Creation of new lots or parcels as part of a townhouse part of a townhouse protect is subject to the applicable land project is subject to the applicable land division approval process.Townhouse projects are subject only to clear and objective standards, approval criteria, division approval process. Local governments may adopt and conditions, and procedures.Alternatively, an applicant may choose to submit an application for a townhouse project subject to discretionary standards apply only clear and objective standards,conditions, and and criteria adopted in accordance with ORS 197.307, if such a process is available. procedures regulating the development of townhouse projects pursuant to OAR 660-008-0015. B. Development Update since MCTAC 6: We recognize that the provisions related to the applicability of a jurisdiction's existing/other standards to townhouses still need to —Local governments are not required to have an applicability Standards be further fleshed out, and will be for subsequent drafts. section. 1. Applicability. These draft provisions attempt to address the relationship between a local jurisdiction's platting requirements and the model code standards. a. Townhouses shall meet the standards in subsections(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (10) and (11) of this section (B). b. Townhouse projects shall meet: • The standards in subsections (2), (6), (9), (10), (11), and (12) of this section (B). • Any applicable clear and objective platting standards, unless those standards conflict with this code. c. The following standards are invalid and do not apply to townhouses or townhouse projects allowed by this code: • Additional development standards of the applicable base zone related to the standards addressed under subsections (2)through (12) of this section (B). • Development standards of the applicable base zone related to lot dimensions, lot coverage, or the siting or design of dwellings. • The jurisdiction's development standards that apply only to townhouses and that conflict with provisions of this code. 2. Number of Update since MCTAC 6:Our current recommendation is not to limit the maximum number of attached units for townhouses(Option 1). We don't see an Local governments must require at least two attached Units. adequate rationale for limiting the number of units, and there are other factors that will limit the scale of development(block length, pedestrian townhouse units and must allow up toat least four attached connectivity requirements, possibly density, etc.). In addition, as MCTAC members have noted, limiting the number of units in a structure may limit townhouse units. flexibility and may not be appropriate for L-shaped or other less typical configurations. Rather than including a standard limiting the number of units in a single structure, we recommend using other standards to minimize any potential adverse impacts on the overall size of a row of townhouses. It may be desirable to limit the number of attached units in a townhouse structure, in order to limit the scale of development. For maximum number of attached units, Option 1 offers the most flexibility(no limit), while Option 2 is the most strict(flat limit for all zones). Option 3 offers a compromise wherein higher-density zones are allowed an unlimited number of detached units, and where the limit for lower-density zones is scaled to the minimum lot size in the zone. In all three options there is no maximum number of townhouse structures in a townhouse project. • Minimum:A townhouse project must contain at least two(2) units. • Maximum: o RECOMMENDED OPTION(1):There is no maximum number of consecutively attached units per townhouse structure. e—OPTION2:The number of consecutively attached units per townhouse structure must not exceed [4/6] units. o OPTION 3:The maximum number of consecutively attached units per townhouse structure is based on the minimum lot size for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone, as provided below: Minimum i et Size in Zone op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 17 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 86 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 18 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Less than 3,000 sf No limit 3,000 sf or more but less than 5,000 sf b units 5,000 sf or more 'I units 3. Minimum Lot Update since MCTAC 6: We eliminated Option 1 (flat minimum lot size)because we think it is more appropriate to scale the allowable intensity of Commentary:A more refined minimum compliance standard for Size. townhouse development to the underlying base zone. We retained the other options, but suggest that a modified approach to lot size and density may be townhome minimum lot size will be provided once the feasibility needed that could potentially allow smaller lots. The analysis provided by ECONorthwest and SERA Architects will assist in formulating that approach. This analysis by ECONorthwest and SERA Architects is completed. should be a key point of discussion at MCTAC 7. The minimum lot size must not exceed the following: Options 2 and 3 scale the minimum lot size for townhouses based on the minimum lot size for detached single family dwellings and are intended to scale Interior lot xx sf the allowable townhouse density to the allowed density in the zone. Non corner exterior lot xx sf Corner lot xx sf • OPTION 1:The minimum lot size for ach townhouse is [1,400] square feet. • OPTION 2:The minimum lot size for each townhouse is based on the minimum lot size for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone, as provided below: Minimum Lot Size in Zone for a Detached Single Family Dwelling Minimum Lot Size for each Townhouse Less than 3,000 sf 1,400 sf 3,000 sf or more but less than 5,000 sf 1,800 sf 5,000 sf or more 2,000 sf • OPTION 3:The minimum lot size for each townhouse is based on the GFA of each townhouse and the minimum lot size for a detached single family dwelling in the same zone, as provided below: GFA<_800 sf GFA>800 sf Minimum Lot Size in Zone for a Minimum Lot Size for each Minimum Lot Size for each Detached Single Family Dwelling Townhouse Townhouse Less than 3,000 sf 1,400 sf xx sf 3,000 sf or more but less than 5,000 sf 1,800 sf xx sf 5,000 sf or more 2,000 sf xx sf 4. Minimum Lot Update since MCTAC 6: We retained both options for consideration by the MCTAC;however, it may not be necessary to regulate both lot width and street Commentary:A more refined minimum compliance standard for Width. frontage. townhome minimum lot width will be provided once the feasibility analysis by ECONorthwest and SERA Architects is completed. 15'and 20'are typical standards for minimum townhouse lot width. In terms of actual development, 15'is common for urban-style townhouses that are The minimum lot width must not exceed the following: alley-loaded or do not have a garage. Townhouses with a street facing garage that are less than 20'could end up being all garage on the lower level. The latter issue could be addressed with design standards, as proposed in Section C. Because townhouses narrower than 15'are not likely to be built, a Interior lot xx sf minimum lot width standard may not even be necessary;as such, we included a "no requirement"option. Non corner exterior lot xx sf Corner lot xx sf • OPTION 1:The minimum lot width for each townhouse is [15/20] feet. op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 18 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 87 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 19 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance • OPTION 2:No requirement. 5. Minimum Commentary: We propose requiring townhouses to have frontage on public streets for the model code.Allowing frontage on private streets would offer Local governments may allow frontage on private streets.Any Street more flexibility, but may be too complicated for the model code(e.g., what would the private street standards be?). We've also included a "no minimum street frontage standard must not exceed XX feet. Frontage. requirement"option in case the MCTAC thinks a public street frontage standard is unnecessary. • OPTION 1:Townhouses must have public street frontage of no less than [15/20]feet. • OPTION 2: No requirement. 6. Maximum Update since MCTAC 6: We added a second option that would limit density for townhouse development commensurate with allowing a quadplex on a Samc as model code.DLCD's approach to minimum compliance is Density. single family lot. In part, the rationale for adding this option is not to advantage townhouse development over triplex/quadplex development by allowing still under development. higher densities.As noted above under minimum lot size, we think an overall modified approach to minimum lot size and density may be needed. Similar to the triplex/quadplex chapter, this draft provision may need to be revised, based on the overall discussion about density allowances for middle housing. • OPTION 1:The maximum density for townhouse projects shall be determined by the minimum lot size as provided in subsection (3) of this section (B). The jurisdiction's pre-existing density maximums do not apply. • OPTION 2: For the purposes of calculating density,four(4)townhouses shall count as a single unit. 7. Setbacks. Update since MCTAC 6:Minor clarifications have been added, including allowing zero rear setback for lots with rear alley access and clarifying the interior A local government may not require front,side, or rear setbacks side setback standard. to be greater than those applicable to detached single family Proposed standards for front and rear setbacks are the same as those for duplex and triplex/quadplex(deferring to single family setbacks). Side setback structures in the same zone and must allow zero-foot side standards allow for attached units and require a small setback at the end of a townhouse structure. setbacks for lot lines where townhouse units are attached. Townhouses shall be subject to the following minimum and maximum setbacks: • Front:The same minimum setback as applicable to detached single family dwellings in the same zone. Minimum front setbacks greater than 20 feet are invalid, except those applicable to garages or carports. • Rear:The same minimum setback as applicable to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, except minimum rear setbacks greater than 15 feet are invalid. No minimum rear setback shall apply to lots with rear alley access. • Street Side:The same minimum setback as applicable to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, except minimum street side yard setbacks greater than 20 feet are invalid. • Interior Side: o The setback for a common wall lot line where units are attached is zero(0)feet. o The setback for an exterior wall at the end of a townhouse structure that faces an interior side lot line is five (5)feet. 8. Height. Commentary:The proposed standard defers to the maximum height in the base zone, but establishes a baseline height of 25 feet or two stories. The Townhouses may not be subject to lower maximum height rationale is that townhouses would not be feasible if at least two stories are not permitted. While it's not common, if a jurisdiction prohibits two-story standards than those applicable to detached single family structures in the same zone, and local governments' height standards must allow construction of at least two stories. op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 19 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 88 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 20 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance structures, the model code would override the standard. Note:some elements will have to be defined in the model code in order to implement this standard (e.g., what defines a story and how height is measured). Townhouses are subject to the same maximum height as applicable to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, except a maximum height of less than 25 feet or two stories is invalid. 9. Maximum Update since MCTAC 6:Based on comments from the MCTAC and the project team's discussions regarding financial feasibility, we recommend removing Commentary:Similar to triplex/quadplex, minimum compliance Floor Area maximum FAR standards for townhouses. Because townhouses are on individual lots, the FAR calculation is not as straightforward as it would be for standards for townhouses should allow, but not require, local Ratio (FAR). triplexes and quadplexes.Also, when combined with draft minimum lot size standards using the scale initially proposed, the resulting unit sizes within some governments to regulate scale or bulk using provisions such as zones are too small to make the townhouses financially viable. We suggest allowing lot size,frontage,setbacks, height, and minimum open space area floor area ratio, lot coverage, or unit size. DLCD is still developing standards to control the scale of development instead of maximum FAR. OAR language that will limit the allowable bulk/scale controls so they do not cause unreasonable cost or delay. • OPTION 4 The m Floor- ratio for a townheus„ p et n 6 to zone, as provided below: Minimum i of Size in Zone fora Maximum FAR for a Detached Single Family Dwelling, Less than 3,000 sf 0.9 to 1 3,000 sf or more but less than 5,000 sf 0.7 to 1 5,000 sf or more but less than 20,000 sf 0.6 to 1 20,000 sf or more 0.4 to 1 • 10. Off-street Update since MCTAC 6:Parking standards are being examined as part of the feasibility analysis by ECONorthwest and SERA Architects. Results of that A local government may not require more than one off-street Parking. analysis may inform revisions to the draft standards or selection of a recommended option. parking space per townhouse unit. We are presenting three options for off-street parking standards:no minimum parking, one space per unit, or 50%of units. We did not include an option for on-street credits here, although those could be considered as well.Similar to triplex/quadplex, these standards will likely be further analyzed to assess their impact on financial and design feasibility for townhouses. That analysis may inform the selection of a preferred option. It is important to note that requiring off-street parking will typically result in elimination of most or all on-street parking for townhouses where off-street parking is accessed directly from the street frontage(due to curb cuts). • OPTION 1:No off-street parking is required. • OPTION 2:The minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for a townhouse project is one (1)space per unit. (Note:spaces could be on individual lots or in a shared parking area on a common tract.) • OPTION 3:The minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for a townhouse project is 0.5 space per unit. (Same note as for Option 2.) op gL�Q,ly��J(Jidle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 20 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 89 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 21 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance 11. Minimum Open Update since MCTAC 6: We eliminated Option 2, which deferred to the local landscape standards for single family development,since those may not make Commentary:Following is an initial draft with arbitrary figures Space and sense when applied to a townhouse development. We also added an option for no open space requirement. Because townhouse lots may be quite small, it intended to spark discussion. Landscaping. may be preferable to manage open space through setback regulations. A local government is not required to regulate minimum open space area and dimensions, but if they choose to,the minimum • OPTION 1:The minimum amount of required open space is [400] square feet per townhouse with a minimum smallest dimension of[14]feet. Open open space may not exceed 25%of the minimum lot size or xx sq space must be landscaped to the planting standards applicable to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, and may be provided on ft,whichever is less, and the minimum smallest dimension may individual townhouse lots or in shared common areas of a townhouse project. not exceed the minimum lot width or 20 ft,whichever is less.A • OPTION 2:A townhouse project shall meet the same minimum landscape area and planting standards applicabl„to d tached sings„family local government may establish provisions allowing the provision dwelling in the same zone. of open space through shared common areas. • OPTION 3:No requirement. 12. Areas Owned Commentary:It may not be necessary to include legal requirements for common area ownership in the model code;however, we are including them in this No requirement. in Common. draft for MCTAC discussion. Common areas must be maintained by a homeowners association or other legal entity.A homeowners association may also be responsible for exterior building maintenance.A copy of any applicable covenants, restrictions and conditions must be recorded and provided to the jurisdiction prior to issuance of a building permit. C. Design Standards Commentary:Our initial recommendation is to regulate four basic design elements for townhouses:(1)entry orientation, (2)unit definition, (3) windows, Commentary:Minimum compliance for design standards should and(4)driveway access and parking. Unlike for triplexes and quadplexes, we do not propose deferring to the jurisdiction's standards for detached single allow, but not require, local governments to apply design family dwellings, which are unlikely to work for townhouses. standards to new townhouses, as long as they do not cause unreasonable cost or delay.Similar to triplexes/quadplexes, DLCD New townhouses shall meet the design standards in subsections (1)through (4)of this section (C). No other design standards shall apply to townhouses. is still developing its approach to limiting allowable design standards, but is considering two potential approaches: 1. Go through each type of design standard and set upper limits and parameters for what can be required/conditioned. 2. Indicate that the design standards of the model code are a "reasonable"safe harbor for communities, and not try to define parameters. 1. Entry Update since MCTAC 6: We recommended Option 2(with some modifications)for the sake of flexibility and consistency with the triplex/quadplex -- Orientation. standards. Subsection(b)(iii)was included to add flexibility in case the preferred option is not to require public street frontage for each townhouse lot. This may not be necessary or desirable if street frontage is required. • OPTION 1:The main entrance of ach townhouse must face a street property line. If a townhouse has more than one street property line,the entrance may face either street. • RECOMMENDED OPTION(2):The main entrance of each townhouse must: a. Be within 8 feet of the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit; and b. Either: op 1 �J(J�L�Q,ly�idle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 21 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 90 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 22 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance i. Face the street-1 ii. Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the street;Of iii. Face a common open space or private access or driveway; or ivi+i.Open onto a porch.The porch must: (A) Be at least 25 square feet in area; and (B) Have at least one entrance facing the street;armor have a roof. (C) Have a roof that is: • No more than 12 feet above the floor of the porch; and • At lest 30 percent solid.This standard may be met by having 30 percent of the porch are covered with a solid roof, or by having the entire area covered with a trellis or other open material if no more than 70 percent of the area of the material is open. 2. Unit definition. Commentary: Unit definition standards are proposed to avoid monotonous rows of flat, unarticulated townhouse facades. The standards are intended to be highly flexible, and could be met by a feature as simple as a recessed entry or porch. Each townhouse must include at least one of the following on at least one street-facing facade: a. A roof dormer a minimum of 4 feet in width, or b. A balcony a minimum of 2 feet in depth and 4 feet in width and accessible from an interior room, or c. A bay window that extends from the facade a minimum of 2 feet, or d. An offset of the facade of a minimum of 2 feet in depth,either from the neighboring townhouse or within the façade of a single townhouse, or e. An entryway that is recessed a minimum of 3 feet, or f. A porch meeting the standards of subsection (1)(b)(iv+++)of this section (C). Balconies and bay windows may encroach into a required setback area. 3. Windows. Commentary: The recommended window standard is the same as for triplex/quadplex. A minimum of 15 percent of the area of all street-facing facades on each individual unit must include windows or entrance doors.Window area is the aggregate area of the glass within each window, including any interior grids, mullions, or transoms. Door area is the area of the portion of a door other than a garage door that moves and does not include the frame. Half of the window area in the door of an attached garage may count toward meeting this standard. 4. Driveway Update since MCTAC 6: These driveway access and parking standards are being reviewed as part of the feasibility analysis by ECONorthwest and SERA Access and Architects. The results of that analysis may inform revisions to the draft standards. Parking. The intent of the driveway access and parking standards is to promote a pedestrian friendly environment by limiting the dominance of vehicle storage on the site. We are only presenting one option for driveway access and parking standards because the proposed standards(adapted from the City of Milwaukie's rowhouse code)address various parking and access configurations. However, other options may be workable as well, and suggestions from the MCTAC are welcome.Also, depending on what option is preferred for the triplex/quadplex standards, it will be important to make sure the townhouse standards are generally consistent, because side-by-side triplexes and quadplexes could look nearly identical to townhouses.And it will be important to ensure that both development types are roughly equal in terms of design feasibility. Our team also is creating scaled diagrams to help assess the design feasibility of several of these standards. op gL�Q,ly�i�J(J dle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 22 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 91 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 23 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Note: The figures below are from the Milwaukie Municipal Code(MMC). If these standards are carried forward, we will create new graphics that depict driveways and parking areas that are more to-scale. a. Garages on the front façade of a townhouse, off-street parking areas in the front yard, and driveway accesses in front of a townhouse are prohibited unless the following standards are met.See Figure 1. i. Each townhouse lot has a street frontage of at least [20] ft on a local street. ii. A maximum of 1 driveway is allowed for every 2 townhouse units and must be shared by the units, except that each townhouse structure with three or more units may include 1 driveway that provides access to a single unit. iii. Outdoor on-site parking and maneuvering areas do not exceed [10/12] ft wide on any lot. iv. The garage width does not exceed [10/12]ft, as measured from the inside of the garage door frame. Figure 1. Townhouse Development with Front Yard Parking(MMC Figure 19.505.5.F.1.) Shared access and driveway STREET r-- --,- ---- i na%. i y Jr 4 4 ►A w 38'min. i J b. The following rules apply to driveways and parking areas for townhouse projects that do not meet all of the standards in subsection (a). i. Off-street parking areas shall be accessed on the back facade or located in the rear yard. No off-street parking shall be allowed in the front yard or side yard of a townhouse. ii. A townhouse project that includes a corner lot shall take access from a single driveway on the side of the corner lot. See Figure 2. op 1 gL�Q,ly��J(Jidle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 23 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 92 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 24 of 25 Standard Model Code Minimum Compliance Figure 2. Townhouse Development with Corner Lot Access (MMC Figure 19.505.5.F.2.b) STREET 1011 w yr �Ys i Shared acco sand driveway iii. Townhouse development that does not include a corner lot shall consolidate access for all lots into a single driveway.The access and driveway are not allowed in the area directly between the front façade and front lot line of any of the townhouses. See Figure 3. Figure 3. Townhouse Development with Consolidated Access(MMC Figure 19.505.5.F.2.c) STREET' STREET 111111.11111 • 11) • Shared axe554nd driveway Shared access and driveway iv. A townhouse development that includes consolidated access or shared driveways shall grant appropriate access easements to allow normal vehicular access and emergency access. c. Townhouse projects served by an alley providing access to the rear yards of all units are exempt from compliance with subsection (b). (This item is from Oregon City's townhouse code, which has access standards very similar to Milwaukie's.) POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL STANDARDS: • A garage shall not extend closer to the street than the furthest forward living space on the street-facing facade. (A similar provision is included in Option 3 of the draft triplex/quadplex Garages and Off-Street Parking Areas design standards;however that option is not recommended.) • Townhouses developed pursuant to this code shall not be subject to mandates for construction of a garage or carport. (Same as Option 9 of the draft triplex/quadplex standards.)Commentary:Because Section C states that"no other design standards shall apply to townhouses,"this standard is not necessary. op gL�Q,ly��J(Jidle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 24 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 93 of 191 LMC Model Code,Parts 1-3(REVISED DRAFT) 25 of 25 trF9 6L�Q,ly�i�J(J dle Housing Model Code ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 25 OF 25 June 18,2020 Page 94 of 191