Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2020-09-14 - Number 08.1 - Staff Memo 09/03/20 w-Attach (PP 19-0008) o� A Os MEMORANDUM Cf OREGp,/ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik Olson, Senior Planner SUBJECT: HB 2001 and HB 2003 Rulemaking Update—September 2020 (PP 19-0008) DATE: September 3, 2020 MEETING DATE: September 14, 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 the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (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, and a reporting and monitoring process related to the Housing Production Strategies elements of HB 2003. Summaries of ongoing state Rulemaking activity can be found here: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/pp-19-0008-house-bills-2001-and-2003. Staff has provided a summary of key issues and the status of associated decision-making processes below. Draft Oregon Administrative Rules for Large and Metro Cities On August 26, 2020, draft administrative rules (OARs) for large and metro cities' were filed with the Secretary of State in order to be considered during upcoming LCDC Hearings, the first of which is scheduled for September 24-25, 2020. The second and final Hearing on the draft rules is scheduled for November 23-24, 2020, during which LCDC is expected to issue a decision regarding the proposed rules. 1 On July 23,2020 the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)adopted a model housing code and administrative rules(OAR 660-046)to guide the development of duplexes in medium-sized cities as part of House Bill 2001. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 The draft OARs contain the proposed model code, minimum requirements, rules related to the development of Housing Production Strategies, and other language to implement HBs 2001 and 2003 in "large and metro" cities throughout the state. This includes provisions related to "higher" middle housing—such as triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters— that establish parameters for jurisdictions to adopt their own compliant housing codes, as well as an alternative approach that allows jurisdictions to show compliance with the bills using percentage-based metrics. Members of the RAC and other technical advisory committees did not reach a consensus agreement on the draft OARs prior to the rules being filed with the Secretary of State. Numerous RAC members expressed disappointment at the limited timeframe provided to review the materials, as several significant changes were included in the draft OARs that were discussed for the first time at the final meeting of the RAC on August 18th. DLCD staff clarified that, despite the draft OARs having been filed for the upcoming Hearing, they are nonetheless subject to significant change between now and final rule adoption. Role of Minimum Requirements While the recommended minimum requirements regarding dimensional standards for higher middle housing remain an important consideration to follow, these minimum requirements should be viewed differently in light of a recent alternative approach offered for consideration by DLCD that would provide additional flexibility for jurisdictions to regulate the location of higher middle housing based on percentage-based thresholds. This approach would allow jurisdictions to consider factors other than minimum lot size in their determination of which "areas" should allow middle housing, which in turn makes minimum lot size regulations less of a critical factor in determining the location of higher middle housing for jurisdictions that opt for this alternate path. With this in mind, discussions related to minimum requirements for townhouses and cottage clusters that took place at the RAC and other technical advisory committee meetings in recent months are briefly summarized below. Draft Rules for Townhouses With respect to townhouses, members of the RAC and the Model Code Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) discussed factors that would encourage their feasibility, including requirements related to unit size, parking, lot size, density and height (see Attachment B). (The Community Development Code (CDC) currently allows townhomes or zero lot line housing in most of its residential zones.) Committee members commented that the relationship between garage, setback, and height standards for townhouses is particularly critical in determining whether a jurisdiction can functionally require two parking spaces through the spatial configuration of these combined elements. These discussions led to the recommendations for townhouses included in the Draft OARs, which include requirements related to minimum lot size, minimum street frontage, density, setbacks, height, and parking (see Attachment E). 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 The draft OARs define townhouses as "a dwelling unit that is part of a row of two or more attached units, where each unit is located on an individual Lot or Parcel and shares at least one common wall with an adjacent unit" (see Attachment E). Staff notes that considerations of dimensional standards are fundamentally different for townhouses than for other types of middle housing, largely due to the fact that they are commonly defined as being developed on individual lots or parcels as attached units with at least one common wall to an adjacent lot. Thus, the average lot size for a townhouse is typically much smaller than for other middle housing types, which do not stipulate that individual units be located on individual lots or parcels. Similarly, they have different street frontage, density, setback, height, and parking requirements than other housing types due to the unique spatial constraints associated with constructing attached dwellings on separate lots. Cottage Clusters Members of the RAC and other technical advisory committees also discussed cottage clusters in more detail in recent months in order to inform their recommendations for the model code and minimum requirements. (The CDC does not allow cottage clusters in any zone.) Committee members offered several suggestions to ensure that their recommendations do not unnecessarily limit cottage cluster development, including through the application of building footprint, setback, cottage orientation, parking, and common courtyard standards. Members also noted that the minimum compliance standards should provide the ability for jurisdictions to approve land divisions for cottage clusters in order to provide the ability for cottages to be developed on individual lots, as well as the ability for jurisdictions to regulate utility service to manage the complications of sharing utilities within a cottage cluster. These conversations led to the recommendations in the draft administrative rules related to cottage clusters, which include numerical standards related to the number of cottages in a cluster, shared courtyard requirements, minimum lot size, minimum lot width, density, setbacks, height, unit size, parking, and lot coverage (see Attachment E). Per Attachment E, the draft OARs define cottage clusters as: ... a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre, each with a footprint of less than 900 square feet. Units may be located on a single Lot or Parcel, or on individual Lots or Parcels that include a common courtyard. Considerations of dimensional standards are also relatively unique for cottage clusters, due to the need for a lot or parcel to be large enough to accommodate the required components of cottage cluster-type housing, including the common courtyard and consolidated parking. The proposed minimum requirements in the draft administrative rules were developed in order to provide options that allow for quality cottage cluster designs, though staff notes that a feasibility analysis was not included for cottage cluster development due to the relatively new nature of this housing type and the number of unknowns that remain regarding barriers to its development. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 4 Alternate "Performance Metric"Approach In a supplemental memo issued for the most recent RAC meeting, DLCD outlined a new potential approach to minimum compliance for Large and Metro cities in developing and adopting land use regulations to allow middle housing in areas that currently allow single-family detached dwellings (see Attachment D). This proposal addresses one of the most critical issues discussed throughout the Rulemaking process—the amount of flexibility that should be provided to local jurisdictions in determining the locations where middle housing will or will not be allowed within their boundaries. This new approach was developed in response to comments from RAC and Model Code Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) members at previous meetings, who advocated for 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. A more detailed perspective was outlined in a letter from the League of Oregon Cities (see Attachment A), which conveyed criticism of the previously-discussed "whittle" and "balloon" approaches in favor of an approach that: promotes racial equity and desegregation, allows jurisdictions to define the "areas" where higher middle housing is allowed, establishes minimum expectations or numerical standards for communities with respect to providing opportunities for middle housing, and focuses on the development of higher middle housing in high-wealth or low- opportunity sub-areas. The new proposal, which DLCD staff refers to as the "performance metric" approach, attempts to respond to the above concerns by allowing jurisdictions to utilize an approach that requires a percentage of(not all) lots or parcels in single-family zones throughout a city to allow at least some types of"higher" middle housing. The proposed "performance metric" approach would also interpret more specifically what it means for a local jurisdiction to "allow" middle housing on a lot or parcel, while preventing local jurisdictions from adopting land use regulations that reinforce segregation by income. Staff notes that jurisdictions that opt for the "performance metric" approach would not be required to regulate middle housing based on minimum lot size as provided in the minimum compliance standards. Middle Housing Percentage Thresholds Though DLCD staff had previously stated that they believed that setting a percentage threshold would be arbitrary, they ultimately acknowledged that percentage thresholds may be useful if they are able to set a "clear standard that enables the significant provision of housing options throughout the state" (see Attachment D). In order to accomplish this, DLCD proposed an alternative approach that would require jurisdictions to meet the following lot or parcel percentage thresholds that outline acceptable minimum allowances of non-duplex Middle Housing types throughout a local jurisdiction: 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 5 • 80% of areas that allow detached single-family dwellings must allow triplexes; • 70% of areas that allow detached single-family dwellings must allow quadplexes; • 60% of areas that allow detached single-family dwellings must allow townhouses; • 50% of areas that allow detached single-family dwellings must allow cottage clusters; One potential downside of this approach is that it may be very difficult for the City to choose between neighborhood areas in allowing upper middle housing, particularly when the redevelopment potential and demographic characteristics are very similar between areas. Staff notes that the overall land base that would be used to calculate the above percentages does not include lots or parcels with constrained infrastructure, resources protected under Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, certain master planned communities, or resources protected though other regulatory statutes. These elements of the previously-discussed "whittle" approach would continue to be a component of the performance metric approach, which would offer jurisdictions additional flexibility to regulate the location of middle housing based on factors other than minimum lot size. Further, as a measure to prevent the segregation of housing types within a local jurisdiction, the performance metric approach includes specific thresholds for each non-duplex middle housing type in the anticipation that some lots or parcels will allow more than one type of middle housing. However, not all middle housing types are required to be allowed on the same lots. This concept is illustrated in the graphic below, from Attachment D: i.e. Goal-protected, Infrastructure-Constrained, Note: The distribution of Master Planned Communities, permitted Middle Housing types Regulatory Compliance will vary by jurisdiction Triplexes 80°I° Not included OAR 660-046- in calculation 0205(2) lands Quadplexes 70% r Townhouses Cottage Included in Single-Family60% Clusters calculation Duplex 50% Circles are illustrative and not to scale 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 6 Equity Metrics As a supplement to the percentage threshold provision in the "performance metric" approach, DLCD proposed additional parameters intended to prevent local jurisdictions from adopting land use regulations that reinforce segregation by income. Though multiple parameters were considered, DLCD ultimately recommended that large cities using the "performance metric" approach must "ensure the equitable distribution of Middle Housing by allowing at least one Middle Housing type other than duplexes on 75 percent of all residential lots and parcels within each census block group within a Large City" (see Attachment E). This supplemental metric was included to ensure that higher middle housing opportunities are distributed equitably by requiring cities to look at the distribution of middle housing at geographies other than zoning districts. The language in the draft OARs related to this equity metric would require cities to ensure that "higher" middle housing types are allowed in at least 75% of the residential areas in a city when analyzed at the census block group-scale. Staff notes that this metric was not discussed in much detail at the most recent RAC meeting, and the question remains as to whether the larger landscape for this 75% equity metric would exclude goal-protected lands, lands with constrained infrastructure, etc., as with the other metrics being considered for this approach. "Allowing"Middle Housing In addition to the equity metric,jurisdictions that opt to pursue the "performance metric" option would be subject to an expanded definition for what it means to "allow" a certain type of middle housing on a given lot or parcel. The draft administrative rules consider a middle housing type to be "allowed" on a given lot or parcel when the following criteria are met: (i) The Middle Housing type is a permitted use on that Lot or Parcel under the same administrative process as a single-family detached dwelling in the same zone; (ii) The Lot or Parcel has sufficient square footage to allow the Middle Housing type within the applicable minimum lot size requirement; (iii) Maximum net or gross density requirements do not prohibit the development of the Middle Housing type on the subject Lot or Parcel; and (iv) The applicable siting or design standards do not individually or cumulatively cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of that Middle Housing type as provided in OAR 660-046-0210(3). The language above clarifies that, if a given lot or parcel allows a middle housing type as a permitted use but is not of sufficient size to accommodate that use under minimum lot size or density standards, the given lot or parcel would not actually "allow" that middle housing type 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 7 for the purposes of the "performance metric" approach. The RAC and numerous technical advisory committees included this provision in the draft OARs in order to address land cost and availability restrictions being a preventative factor in the development of middle housing, and this language enables jurisdictions to utilize the "performance metric" approach without running into conflict with the "unreasonable cost or delay" language in HB 2001. Staff notes that, while the "performance metric" approach appears to offer more flexibility than either the model code or minimum requirements, there are numerous complications to consider in how the City would apply such an approach in our efforts to update the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan for compliance. Though DLCD continues to propose that middle housing can be limited in areas with goal-protected resources or infrastructure constraints, the requirement to show that the City has met certain metrics related to where middle housing is permitted within census block group-level geographies could make it difficult to use an objective standard in determining which areas of Lake Oswego are protected under Statewide Land Use Planning goals or constrained by a lack of infrastructure. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in order to get further clarification from DLCD as to the basis for analyzing the equity metric within census block groups. Staff also notes that, though DLCD is calling this the "performance metric" approach, the approach really is less about a jurisdiction's performance in producing middle housing units and is in fact more about the specific percentages of their jurisdiction that must allow specific types of middle housing. It is actually a different type of prescriptive minimum standard. While the addition of the equity-related metric represents an attempt to ensure that middle housing opportunities are distributed evenly within a jurisdiction, staff notes that this metric is a rather blunt tool with overly broad applicability that could have unintended consequences. We would prefer to see a performance metric that is rational and focuses on outcomes such as housing needs or production. The rulemaking conversations are expected to continue at future technical advisory committees, including a joint meeting with the RAC, as DLCD prepares for public hearings this fall. Staff notes that, if the Planning Commission has any critical input regarding the proposed "performance metric" approach, please direct staff accordingly so that we can provide timely comment to the RAC and LCDC prior to September 24, 2020. Staff will monitor future rulemaking meetings and LCDC Hearings in order to better understand the direction of the conversation regarding the performance metric approach, pending direction from the Commission. ATTACHMENTS A. Letter to DLCD from League of Oregon Cities, 7/10/2020 B. Townhouse Feasibility Considerations Memo, 7/24/2020 C. MCTAC Meeting#8 Summary, 8/13/2020 D. Performance Metric Memo, 8/14/2020 E. Draft Middle Housing OARs for Large Cities, 8/26/2020 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Ethan Stuckmayer I LOC Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol St NE#150 League of Oregon Cities Salem, OR 97301 July 10, 2020 RE: HB 2001 Rulemaking and Middle Housing Minimum Compliance Standards The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) writes to urge DLCD to revisit their current approach to the minimum compliance standards for triplexes and quadplexes,townhomes, and cluster cottages. In passing HB 2001,the Legislature made a clear distinction between requiring duplexes on every lot or parcel zoned for single family residential use and not requiring triplexes, quadplexes,townhomes, and cluster cottages on every lot, but instead "in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single family dwellings."The Department's proposed minimum compliance standards overstep that legislative intent and the proposed "whittle away" approach effectively requires all middle housing types on all lots. When combined with the Department's proposed restrictions on minimum lot sizes, cities are left with very little flexibility when designing their own codes to comply with HB 2001. The current "whittle away" approach: • Does not expressly allow cities to define different areas within their jurisdiction in which middle housing can be regulated in different ways, except for excluding specific geographic areas through the "whittle away" approach. • Fails to provide a path for cities to retain middle housing strategies that are already working and have already produced middle housing.' Instead,the minimum compliance standards specify one approach statewide. • Prevents cities from responding to context and community goals, particularly when combined with the minimum compliance standards currently proposed. Specifically, the current minimum compliance standards: o Remove flexibility and severely limit cities' ability to use tools such as minimum lot size, maximum density, planned unit developments, and unit maximums per lot.The proposed minimum compliance standards prohibit cities from requiring larger minimum lot sizes for triplexes or quadplexes than for detached single family dwellings.This restriction discourages cities from proposing smaller minimum lot sizes for single family detached dwellings that would make home ownership more affordable. 1 Cities and counties in Oregon have used housing mix requirements, master plan requirements, Planned Unit Developments, minimum density requirements, reduced lot size requirements, zoning incentives (including incentives for affordable housing)and other techniques to promote middle housing in ways that produces a significant number of middle housing units. PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 3 Page 182 of 187 o Do not allow a jurisdiction to adjust minimum parking requirements to deal with area- specific conditions, such as housing units with greater parking demand or situations where on-street parking is not available. o Rely on a flawed or incomplete feasibility analysis that: ■ Only analyzes vacant lots (when most middle housing in existing neighborhoods will involve redevelopment or adding units to sites with existing housing). ■ Tests three different FAR scenarios that assume low maximum floor-area-ratios, which have since been revised in the draft, and contemplates a limited range of development scenarios when combined with height and other standards. Given the need for additional flexibility,the LOC suggests a different approach to defining"areas" and drafting minimum compliance administrative rules for jurisdictions that will be approving their own development codes.The approach can be combined with the "whittle away" approach as proposed by DLCD in some cases as discussed below, and would set expectations for jurisdictions' performance while allowing cities a variety of ways to meet those performance measures.The basic components of the approach are: 1. Promotion of racial equity and desegregation: Every jurisdiction would be expected to allow middle housing in a way that promotes racial equity and reduces historic segregation by race, ethnicity and income by providing the opportunity for a wider range of housing types to be built in areas zoned for residential use that allow detached single family dwellings.The state's administrative rules would set expectations.Jurisdictions would make findings, and the state would review to ensure compliance. 2. Area definitions: Each jurisdiction would be able to define geographic areas2 within the jurisdiction within which the jurisdiction could vary its approach to allowing middle housing.The total of all the combined areas would have to include every lot"zoned for residential use that allow detached single-family dwellings" unless areas are removed using the "whittling away' approach. 3. Standards and expectations: Local iurisdictions' standards must allow middle housing types within each area designated within a jurisdiction. Local jurisdictions may allow middle housing types on all lots but are not required to allow them on all lots. Each jurisdiction then would approve development standards for those areas that allow middle housing. The state should establish minimum expectations for middle housing opportunities, such as through guidelines (allow middle housing on a "significant" or"substantial" number of lots, for example) or numerical standards (ensure middle housing is allowed on 30 percent of lots or greater within each area,for example). 4. Opportunity not exclusivity: In addition to the segregation and racial equity expectations mentioned above,the administrative rules also could specify that middle housing must be allowed in high-wealth/low-poverty sub-areas or neighborhoods and require jurisdictions to provide analysis that demonstrates middle housing is allowed within those sub-areas. 2 Boundaries can be zones, land use districts,Comprehensive Plan designations,development pattern areas or any other geographical solution jurisdictions develop to respond to local context. PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 2 OF 3 Page 183 of 187 The four points above outline a conceptual approach,which is described in more detail in options B and C in the attached letter from Brian Martin.Additional work would be required to develop administrative rules. The LOC and individual city representatives are eager to work with DLCD staff and the Land Conservation and Development Commission to craft an approach that faithfully implements HB 2001, significantly increases middle housing opportunities and allows cities the flexibility to consider community history, public engagement and local context. Sincerely, Ariel Nelson, on behalf of the League of Oregon Cities City of Albany City of Beaverton City of Eugene City of Hillsboro City of McMinnville City of Salem City of Springfield City of West Linn City of Wilsonville c>�y or.AL6,44, � . ,0IIIIA 41111111\141k i s ,, i,� BeavertonOR G ON Eugene City CITY OF a6110‘,......---• ( ) HiIIsboro OREGON AT YOUR SERVICE _f SPRING HELD .• iLiiiii ��� CITY OP rielWest Linn WILSONVILLE O R E G O N WAGON PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 3 OF 3 Page 184 of 187 ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING DATE: July 24, 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: Townhouse Feasibility Considerations 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 provides an evaluation of reasonable bounds for key development standards for townhouses. This evaluation is based on a detailed review of example townhouse developments statewide, rather than on analysis of hypothetical developments. This is because there are sufficient recent built examples for townhouse development to provide insights into the development scale and density that is workable in practice. The example developments were sourced from a combination of input from Model Code Technical Advisory Committee members and research by ECONorthwest, SERA Architects, and Angelo Planning Group. Observations and Recommendations by Topic Unit Size Observations: • The smallest observed unit size is about 900 square feet(sf),with roughly a 450 sf footprint. Nearly all units were at least 1,000 sf, and most were at least 1,200 sf. • The most common sizes are between 1,200-1,800 sf with 2 floors of living space. • Very few townhome developments with four or more units per building have units larger than 2,000 sf. • There are more larger units in developments with just two attached units. (These also tend to be quite a bit more expensive, and have mostly been built in high-cost neighborhoods in Portland and prime locations in areas with a strong second home market.) • In some cases, larger units were on larger lots,but this was not always the case. • Below-grade living space is uncommon within the examples we reviewed, though at least one townhouse development had one floor of living space partially below grade, and several had tuck-under garages that were slightly below grade. Recommendations: • For minimum feasibility, ensure that regulations allow for at least a 1,200 sf unit size for townhouses. ECONorthwest I Portland I Seattle I Los Angeles I Eugene I Boise I econw.com 1 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 3 Page 60 of 187 • To provide greater flexibility, allow for unit sizes up to 2,000 sf. • Do not link allowed floor area to lot size (e.g. through floor area ratio standards). Parking Observations: • Most townhouses have a garage with a driveway. Single-car garages are more common than two-car garages overall among the examples we reviewed, though outside of Portland,there is a more even split. • A few townhouses have no parking at all (all located in Portland among the examples we reviewed). • Townhouse developments built as part of a greenfield development have a mix of alley and street access. Infill development mostly has street access or a shared driveway (or no parking). Recommendations: • For minimum feasibility, do not require more than one parking space per unit. • For greater flexibility, allow parking within the front setback(in a driveway) and on- street parking abutting the development to count towards the parking requirement. • For maximum flexibility, do not require parking, and do not restrict development from providing two garage spaces if desired. Lot size and Density Observations: • The smallest observed lot size (highest observed density) is 6 units on a 5,000 sf lot(833 sf per unit) in Portland with no parking and no yard or shared open space. There were other examples in the Portland suburbs (including in both Gresham and Washington County's North Bethany area) with lots under 900 sf and no yard but with garage parking and a shared driveway. • The largest observed lot size is between 2,600 and 4,000 sf within a single development, but this includes a private road. The usable lot area for the development is closer to 2,000 to 3,700 sf. Buildings each had two attached townhouse units, which increases lot size relative to buildings with more units attached due to side yards, and some have deeper lots with larger yards due to site configuration. • Most townhouses have between 1,200 and 3,000 sf per unit. ECONorthwest 2 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 3 Page 61 of 187 Recommendations: • For minimum feasibility, do not require more than 3,000 sf of land per unit(on average for the development) in any zone. This might be appropriate in zones with larger minimum lot sizes for single family homes (e.g. 12,000 sf, allowing 4 townhouse units). • To encompass the most likely townhouse development, allow townhouses on lots as small as 1,200 sf(on average for the development). This would translate to roughly 4 units on a 5,000 sf lot. • For maximum flexibility, allow lots as small as 800 sf(on average for the development) in zones with lower minimum lot sizes for single family homes (e.g. under 3,000 sf). Height Observations: • Development examples were roughly split between two-story and three-story townhouses. A few had three and a half stories, or had a lofted top floor ceiling that made them appear to be four stories. • Nearly all townhouses that have a garage for parking are at least two and a half stories tall (sometimes the garage was partly below grade). Recommendations: • For minimum feasibility, allow at least two and a half stories in all zones. • For greater flexibility, allow three full stories (or more,if allowed for single family homes). ECONorthwest 3 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 3 Page 62 of 187 18 Middle Housing Model Code Technical Advisory Committee(MCTAC) Meeting#8 August 4, 2020; 9am—12pm Zoom Virtual Meeting Key Insights Summary Large and Metro Cities Model Code—TAC members offered the following suggestions for the Model Code: Cottage Clusters—TAC members offered several suggestions to ensure that standards do not limit cottage cluster development, including through the application of building footprint, setback, cottage orientation, parking, and common courtyard standards. Townhouses—One core issue that was raised was the relationship between garage, setback, and height standards and whether they enable a jurisdiction to functionally require two parking spaces through a tandem configuration. Plexes—TAC members raised consideration of adjusting several standards to reduce unreasonable cost or delay, including addition of a 0.9 FAR for 5,000—10,000 SF minimum lot size and lowering setback upper limits to ten feet. Administrative Rules:Minimum Compliance—TAC members offered the following feedback for minimum compliance provisions: Cottage Clusters—The minimum compliance standards should provide flexibility for cities that develop land division standards. Similarly, it should provide the ability for cities to regulate utility service, as these development types can get complicated with shared utilities. Certain standards, including building footprint, lot size, setbacks, and lot coverage should ensure that standards do not fully restrict cottage cluster development. Similarly, standards such as maximum unit size, attached cluster configurations, and minimum/maximum units per cluster standards should be clarified in rule. Options to develop more flexible standards that allow for quality cottage cluster designs is a core element that should be reflected in rule. Townhouses—Similar to the issue in the Model Code,there are questions regarding the interaction between garage, setback, and height provisions.Additionally,there is question about the interaction between the minimum lot size and maximum density minimum compliance provisions. Plexes—There is disagreement about the appropriate minimum lot size for plexes, with housing advocates expressing concern about the exclusion of smaller lots from plex development and representatives of local jurisdictions preferring a higher required minimum lot size. Conversions—One key point is that the minimum compliance standards should include provisions that better incentivize the retention of existing structures, either through internal conversion of or additions to existing single-family detached dwellings. One core recommendation is not requiring additional parking for sites that retain existing structures. Administrative Rules: "In Areas"and Alternative Standards—TAC members offered the following feedback for minimum compliance provisions: MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 1 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 1 OF 10 Page 18 of 177 19 • How urban, unincorporated counties will apply ORS 195.065 to determine areas with "sufficient urban services" • How or if areas with high slopes would be precluded from development, given existing issues with the metric • Clarifying "existing alternative standards" including the "substantial production" of middle housing test • Increased parameters around how a city can determine "unreasonable cost or delay" • Clarify expectations of the agency in relation to how cities make the case for "alternative standards" • Adjusting the equity test language to better connect the analysis to housing choice and opportunity and ensure that the approach shifts from "do no harm" to "undo harm" MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 2 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 2 OF 10 Page 19 of 177 20 Meeting Notes Participants Public • Alexis Biddle • Ariel Nelson • Anna Slatinsky(for Brian Martin) • David Martineau • Ellen Miller • Erik Olson • Heather Richards • Jason Yaich • Hope Beraka • Karlockert • Jeremy Rogers • Laura Kelly • Jerry Lidz • Mary Piper • Kaarin Knudson • Sophie McGinley • Kimberli Fitzgerald • Kol Peterson Staff/Consultants • Mark Rust • Ethan Stuckmayer • Martha Fritzie • Robert Mansolillo • Mary Kyle McCurdy • Sean Edging • Pauline Hardie • Samuel Garcia • Peter Keyes • Kevin Young • Sarah Adams-Schoen • Gordon Howard • Susan King • Palmer Mason • Ted Reid • Emma Land • Anne Debbaut • Matt Hastie • Kate Rogers Cottage Cluster Model Code Definitions • Mark—Difficulty building in land division process—leaving this open for local jurisdictions is important. If there's a way to provide guidance for cities that consider land division in the standards. Almost like "modifiers"to the Model Code.A menu of things that should be considered. • Anna—Around legal structure is really around utility service. One of the more challenging aspects of this development is determining how to provide utility service in a way that is efficient and that ownership patterns can change over time. If a cluster is created on a single lot with shared utilities—untangling this is extremely challenging. If not done properly,there can be significant disputes around utility service when it's not resolved. • Kol—Two questions—1) under minimum compliance, it's permissible to allow cottage clusters to have a greater than 900 ft footprint?Would HB 2001 compel them to reduce this footprint and 2) If a city allowed for attached or detached cottages, would that be permissible? If out of compliance,would the whole MC apply? o Consultant—Legislature defined as detached and no greater than 900 SF, OAR would need to be consistent with that. o Staff— Nothing in the section precludes a local jurisdiction allowing housing in an attached configuration. It just may need to be in a different use category. On MC MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 3 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 3 OF 10 Page 20 of 177 21 application,we did clarify if a city is non-compliant, only the housing type out of compliance would apply the MC. • Mark—On footprint size,the 900 SF shouldn't include a garage. My thinking is a scenario with detached clustered garages provided. Would you have to associate a dwelling unit with a garage. Development Standards • Mark—if we don't have a minimum number of units,we have issues with overlap with plexes. In the draft code for Springfield, we had five units to avoid overlap. I would support there not being a maximum. On density, there shouldn't be a maximum. I have advocated for this on other middle housing types, but this is more based on a form-based code. • Anna—Lot size, I would advocate on viewing cottage clusters through some type of courtyard component. We treat the type as something that is okay to reserve for lots that don't have the same size. Particularly if the idea is to include a minimum number of cottages. Fitting in all of the components on a small site seems like a stretch. If the point is to not limit the density but including a lot of shared amenities, it will be more space intensive. On orientation, these are a bit too rigid and should be more flexible. o Consultant—What would the lot size be?We recognize that the practical lot size will be greater, but we need to be able to tie this to the zone. o Anna—It is okay to have lots that are larger than other housing types. I don't have a specific number, because I don't have an analysis of this. Fitting all of these components will require more space. • Kol—Applaud setback requirements. I recommend applying these same setback requirements for other housing types. On unit size, I prefer option three, which would provide the most affordable form of cluster development. • Kaarin—I agree with Mark on density. On the possibility of having an average footprint or unit size made me wonder about variations in height allowed.The bungalow court comes to mind as an example—I am wondering about maximum height issues with footprint and lot coverage being adjusted. o Consultant—Putting lot coverage would make the administration of these standards difficult. o Staff—There's overlap with a lot coverage standard and courtyard standard.We ultimately get to a de facto lot coverage standard. • Pauline—On setbacks, I'd recommend 20 ft for garages. • Martha—Mark mentioned building footprint definition. Don't include garages or accessory structures. On OARs with the number of units—under applicability, it says large cities may apply numerical standards to middle housing,then it says it must apply between 5-8. Confused about the numbers. o Staff—On the number of units, we struggled writing this.The question is "what is the minimum number of cottages that a city can allow?" What is the right minimum?We've decided that a minimum of 5 would create parity with plexes and that up to 8 prevent cities from imposing additional courtyard requirements for a smaller number of units. o Consultant— If parking was clustered, it would not be included in the square footage of the cottages. MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 4 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 4 OF 10 Page 21 of 177 22 o Martha—On maximum unit size, while I am all for flexibility and that it's enticing to have an average. At time of building, it's easy to regulate but more difficult as additions come in, because you have to look back at average unit size. It would be easier to implement a maximum unit size. • Anna—On courtyards, sites that are irregular or not square or sites that cannot have cottages cluster around a courtyard. I understand not having requirements that are too rigid. One way to address this is to be permissive as to what "clustered" means, allowing access to the shared courtyard (not requiring frontage) and that the courtyard is sized based on number of units. It is rash to assume lots will be rectangular. o Consultant—We discuss this further in the design standards. • Peter—Interaction between courtyard and parking design/requirements. If parking can't be within the front or side setback, it's saying parking has to be in the middle of the site which isn't feasible. It's difficult to regulate building requirements in code and design of outdoor space. I am concerned about the size of the courtyard—we will get designers solving numerical constraints rather than designing good courtyards. When we talk courtyard design, we exclude parking. "Woonerf" a living street with outdoor area where cars can park throughout. Requiring lawns is not contextually appropriate in the PNW,where the area is unusable 7 months out of the year. Rigid requirements may create nice looking courtyards that aren't very usable. Off-Street Parking and Design Standards • Staff—We have left minimum compliance, and design standards, we have left this up to cities to define. o Peter—Even though it is in within the Model Code.There are issues with parking being on the edge or rear. Rear access especially can demand a lot of space. o Consultant—The intent is to have a set of reasonable, implementable standards that a local jurisdiction can pull from. • Pauline—Worked with developers to tinker with cottage code in Bend. Developers provided a lot of feedback about what doesn't work. One is the setbacks along perimeter(reduced to 5 ft). There was a cottage development in Sisters providing garages with street access,which wouldn't be allowed under this code. • Anna—Following up on Peter's comment on courtyard design, I spent a month in LA with my 85 year old father-in-law who has trouble walking. Being able to park close to his house is important. Given that this unit type can serve that demographic, so thinking through how requirements might impact people with limited mobility is important. Allowing for flexibility for having parking and pick-up/drop off space is valuable. Maybe there is a limited number of parking spaces allowed. On site planning, the more components are restricted, the more complicated the math gets and limits the practical size to build these developments. • Jerry—It would be very helpful to have schematic diagrams. I've commented on other housing types that off-street parking is a bad idea; it is especially bad here because it uses up street frontage. o Consultant—On graphic, we are creating some but were hesitant to send out.This will be helpful. MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 5 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 5 OF 10 Page 22 of 177 23 • Kol—For off-street parking, I support 2a, similar to waiving off-street requirements for ADUs. For the few cottage clusters I've seen,the issue has been lot coverage standards. I don't know how to write a code to address that. I strongly support the existing structures provision. o Consultant—We are avoiding lot coverage standards in the MC and would conflict with other standards. o Kol—Would the cities' underlying standards apply? o Consultant—They would not. • Peter—Maybe we can look at things that have been designed to build back(e.g. Portland cottage design challenge in 2007).The first prize winner violates all of the requirements here. httos://www.portland.Rov/sites/default/files/2020-01/courtvard.pdf o Staff—This highlights the challenge of developing a set of unified standards.The hope is that through the OARs, we leave open the possibility for jurisdictions to create different avenues for good design. • Mark—I would recommend option 2 for off-street parking under cottage spaces. Consider limited on-street to just frontage spaces. I think parking should be provided additional flexibility would be beneficial. On community buildings, does this belong in the Model Code or just minimum compliance. On parking design d), it includes garages as part of the footprint, which it shouldn't be. I am supportive of no lot coverage requirements. o Consultant—Community buildings are a typical feature, so we want to ensure that it is allowed and sometimes it is used as a guest house, in which a size limitation is appropriate. • Peter—I appreciate that this is just the Model Code and jurisdictions have the ability to write their own standards. We are getting into how complicated this is and the likely scenario is that people will just adopt this code. Townhouses • Mark—Question on off-street parking. In terms of allowing a jurisdiction to require a garage, is that allowed here? For minimum compliance, it talks about not requiring more than one off- street parking space. If they require a garage and a setback of 20 ft. Does this prohibit townhouses? o Staff—This also ties into building height. We will ensure this is coordinated within the OARs. • Anna—On garages, if there is a driveway of a certain depth, does this de facto require an additional parking space. We don't want a 5 ft setback because of functional conflicts (parking in right-of-way). If there is a driveway in front of a garage,the minimum is typically driven by this. On prohibition on garages, I am concerned that in areas where the focus is creating pedestrian- friendly environment. One way to do this is to require enclosed off-street parking spaces, I am worried about a prohibition creating an unappealing situation where cities can't discourage surface parking lots. o Consultant—On setbacks, Brian had raised this but we should take another look at this. On prohibition of garages, one of the points of the legislation is these code requirements not result in significant added cost or delay for middle housing. We think about it in comparison to other housing units, and it has a significant cost on the construction of the unit. MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 6 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 6 OF 10 Page 23 of 177 24 • Kol—In Model Code,townhouses require one space per unit. Is it possible to reduce this to 0.6 per unit in line with other housing types. o Consultant—it's tougher with townhome developments because each unit is on its own lot.The only way to make that work is either a shared lot or one space on each lot. • Pauline—Voice support for option 1 on driveway approach,which provides greater flexibility. • Mark—On driveway/access diagrams, page 120 of the packet for improvable alleys in the guise of plexes. Could this diagram be similar to others related to townhomes?What does "improvable alley" mean? o Consultant—The "improvable" provision was in an earlier draft of the code and later eliminated. Beyond that, the references to standards relate to these Model Code provisions but may not have totally caught up. • Kaarin:This is back with townhouses and the Design Standard addition that Matt said was added because of my feedback: Each townhouse must include at least one of the following on at least one street-facing facade: ... f. A covered entryway with a minimum depth of 4 feet, or... I would change the above to 3' depth.That aligns to the other standards and makes more sense structurally. Tri-and Quadplexes • Mary Kyle—On minimum compliance for minimum lot size. I think that the wording is confused. I would prefer to keep minimum compliance the same as the Model Code.The way it's written will enable cities to say you can "only" have plexes on these large lots, and you won't see them required to be allowed on 5000 SF lots. On Springfield's issue, is to say they must be allowed on 5000 SF lots. o Staff—What we are saying is that if the SFD lot size is less than 5000, a city could allow plexes on smaller lots, but that is the "breaking point". It should be required to allow it on 5000.The memo shows that it is a perfectly feasible option. o Mary Kyle—The key is requiring the lot size. • Mark— I agree with Mary Kyle that there's a need for clarity.The word "may"throws it off.This isn't only Springfield's concern. I know Bend has expressed a similar concern with allowing small lots for cottages. My comment is more about the numbers. On the legislation, it effectively requires doubling the density on duplexes. In my mind,the 5000 and 7000 should be 7000 and 9000. It puts it more on a level playing field with other middle housing types. • Jerry—I generally agree with concern about density, but I like the numbers in the OAR. Making the different middle housing types comparable is nice but not the goal. On FAR,the key term there is "site area". o Consultant— It's essentially the lot area. We may need it in definitions, but there are things we don't define in here to avoid conflicting with local jurisdiction code. • Kol—In FAR standards,there is a cliff event created between 5000 and 5001 SF lots.We would recommend a threshold between 5000 and 10,000 SF lot that is 0.9. For minimum lot size, I agree with MKM's comment. I would argue it should be the same as SFD in the same zone, but I have the same concerns. On setbacks, ECONW analysis suggested setbacks will be onerous, so we need to reduce rear (20'to 10') and side yard setbacks. On parking, I like the minimum compliance, but conversions should make clear that preservation of a unit with added units also MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 7 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 7 OF 10 Page 24 of 177 25 is exempted. Additional off-street parking is typically a poison pill. We want to reward actors who are preserving an existing structure. o Consultant—We can revise FAR standards. On the last comment, we will adjust conversion standards. • Peter—I am concerned about whether this ignores unit size. When we look at our housing need, we need a lot of small units. I am concerned this wastes a lot of potential for smaller lots. We have designed one building from SFD to a 16-plex. We should regulate form and FAR, rather than triggering additional standards based on unit count.This would allow people to preclude historic examples.This is a backdoor for people to find a loophole to essentially not allow this type of housing. • Martha—I would comment about language in minimum lot or parcel size. It needs clarification and answers as to whether the numbers are correct. It's overly complicated. You are saying that the minimum lot size is 5000 or 7000 SF. 1) Not all jurisdictions that comply with this are Portland and 2) I am an advocate for on-site parking. Keeping off-street parking the way they are is reasonable. When talking about minimum lot size, in our county,you have a minimum for the subdivision. When talking through this, I assume you mean plex on a lot.Are you saying that you don't have to allow it in a zoning district that has smaller lot sizes? • Anna—Martha did a good job articulating on clarity. I want to point out that the use of minimum lot size is setting up a perverse incentive for jurisdictions that are worried about putting a lot of plexes on an individual lot. Because it's tied to the SFD lot, it sets up a scenario who wish to limit middle housing can do so by manipulating the SFD lot size. I want to emphasize that jurisdictions have the ability to use more tools to achieve the objective of getting more middle housing, it may not be the greatest thing to rely on lot size rules. It may be better to look at outcomes and look at ways to allow cities to be more fine grained. I am okay with scaling applicability plexes based on lot size, but I think it is more appropriate to have a smaller lot size that allows all housing types if there is additional flexibility to take a fine grained flexible approach. • Heather—I want to echo Martha. I appreciate the thoughtfulness on minimum lot size discussions. It's important to remember that these apply to smaller cities. I am concerned about tying plexes to SFD. I am comfortable with 5000 and 7000 parameters. On Mark, he is representing all of our cities. OAR Chapter 660, Division 046 "In areas" • Martha—On large city applicability,the connection to duplexes, in tying this to the standards for Medium Cities, it never says the large city has to do these. It should change to "local government". On general applicability, lands outside of a UGB should not apply. I notice "large city" lumps incorporated urban counties in ORS 196.095. What does this mean?As a county with these areas, we are not sure what this means. o Staff—The language as drafted here really ties this to large cities. We have lumped counties into large cities. ORS 195.065 defines "urban services" portion.The sufficiency of those is undefined by the ORS. We can have a conversation with the counties about what this means. MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 8 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 8 OF 10 Page 25 of 177 26 • Peter—I am wondering about the limitations based on slope and why this is called out separately for middle housing than SFD housing in a similar location. o Staff—Part of the reason this is included is administrative rules related to "buildable lands" which exclude lands with slopes above 25%. o Peter—We're discussing two different things.The BLI precludes sites above a certain slope because they are probably not buildable, but this is a rough calculation and is very different than saying you cannot build on high sloped lands. We shouldn't take this shorthand and use it to justify exclusions. Don't give exclusionary jurisdictions an easy out. • Mary Kyle—On "may limit or preclude" for goal-protected lands,which is a very broad category and includes lands that don't have anything inherent that preclude the development of a plex. Specifically, historic districts. Additionally,there are lands where higher types could be allowed without degrading the resource. • Martha—I think there is inconsistency with Goal 5 language on this, but it sounds like you will be going back to revisit this. Minimum Compliance • Curious about 1,500 SF standard for townhouses. It seems like significantly additional density. This essentially requires jurisdictions to allow for 29 units per acre? o Staff—there are density standards that would restrict it further. • Kol—In this OAR, it seems that lot coverage standards for cottage clusters do apply, whereas previous conversation indicates it does not. o Staff—Both are technically correct.The MC restricts lot coverage, but minimum compliance allows it up to what applies to an SFD in the same zone. • Pauline—Want to echo Martha on townhome lots. In our very low density zones,we allow townhomes on 2-4 units per acre. Would we treat townhomes as the same in each zone, or is there a difference between zones. Alternative Standards • Anna—This is a section that has some good elements and things that need work. Generally speaking, the idea that large cities want to exclude middle housing misstates what cities want to do. We want to find ways to allow it that work best for the particular area we talk about.The term "exclude" makes the assumption that the intent is exclusionary. On existing standards, we do want to look at this. I am concerned about defining"substantial production".We should be able to apply this to new alternative standards. On unreasonable cost or delay, but not the unit of analysis. If there's a lot where plexes are not allowed,the delay is permanent.There needs to be more about what unreasonable cost or delay is. Specific language under 2.b.A., I don't think maintenance is reasonable.The proportionality test is good. The tricky thing from local jurisdictions is these don't give a clear path for jurisdictions to be confident that their approach meets these criteria.The concerns that a jurisdiction may have is pretty important given the possibility of legal challenge. On equity, A through D are important things but we are using housing type as a proxy for these things. We can't control who lives in these and how they are used. While we can use data sources to understand how well a city is doing in promoting MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 9 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 9 OF 10 Page 26 of 177 27 development of middle housing in areas that are wealthy or white. Can we explain how these would achieve the goal of housing variety. • Jerry—League of Women Voters. I don't think that cities would be allowed to maintain a set of single-family dwellings where the cost or rent is low.As Anna commented, new multi-family development than smaller single-family development. I am worried about new development driving out existing affordable housing. • Martha—I agree with Anna on c.The demonstration on inequitable distribution. Showing that within a jurisdiction that whatever the rules are allow for an even distribution throughout different types of neighborhoods. It's a good analysis if we can pin that down. On 2.a. I am not sure what this means. o Staff—This is to ensure that the issue cannot be resolved through form-based measures. o Martha—Are you saying you can apply for alternative standards to bulk, size and shape? • Mary Kyle—First,the proportionality is confusing because the proportionality of cumulative time and cost.The legislation is clear that it wants to increase the provision of housing. Second, on subsection c. on inequitable distribution.This is written as "do no harm", and the purpose of the statute is to "undo harm".What we want to see as opposed to what we do not want to see? Third, looking at allowing cities to allow existing standards is incorrect in terms of measuring it against the purpose of the statute. It's not just numbers. It's about allowing it in many more locations. Only looking at the amount already allowed in areas is the wrong measurement for equivalence. • Mark—I share concerns with Anna and Martha.As a supplemental,there was a letter from Brian. In my mind, the biggest picture issue is it doesn't do what the legislation intended. It is supposed to allow jurisdictions to tailor housing types to different areas. I have concerns with sub 1, because "substantial production" is vague.Also, what does "existing alternative standards" mean? If this is a month before the deadline, can we use those? • Martha—I agree with Mark. I really want to thank you for being responsive to these concerns. Next Steps MCTAC8 Summary Housing RAC#9 Page 10 of 10 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 10 OF 10 Page 27 of 177 HOUSING RU LEMAKI NG ADVISORY (-444 COMMITTEE DLCD MEETING PACKET #9 TO: Housing Rulemaking Advisory Committee Members FROM: Ethan Stuckmayer, Senior Housing Planner SUBJECT: Performance Approach Outline Housing Rulemaking Advisory Committee Members, The purpose of this memorandum is to outline a potential approach to minimum compliance for Large and Metro cities in developing and adopting land use regulations to allow Middle Housing in areas that allow single-family detached dwellings,as required by House Bill 2001. DLCD staff developed preliminary language to outline a potential "performance metric"approach.The key elements of this approach include the following provisions: - A more specific interpretation regarding what it means for a local jurisdiction to"allow" Middle Housing on a lot or parcel. - A series of lot or parcel percentage thresholds that outline acceptable minimum allowances of non-duplex Middle Housing types throughout a local jurisdiction. - Keeping the current rule framework for analysis of a city's siting or design standards,which is necessarily somewhat subjective if it is to allow for a local jurisdiction to have flexibility to craft siting and design regulations that fit within the local jurisdiction but also satisfy the statutory standard regarding reasonability and avoiding unnecessary cost and delay. - Parameters that mitigate the potential for a local jurisdiction to submit land use regulations that reinforce segregation by income. Acceptable Middle Housing Percentage Thresholds While staff expressed reservation regarding the perceived arbitrariness of setting a percentage threshold, it may be an acceptable trade-off if we arrive at a clear standard that enables the significant provision of housing options throughout the state.To achieve this, staff developed an approach that requires a specific percentage of lots or parcels that allow each non-duplex Middle Housing type in single-family zones throughout a city.This percentage will not include lands described in OAR 660-046-0205(2) (i.e.goal-protected, infrastructure-constrained, master planned communities, regulatory compliance).Additionally,to prevent the segregation of housing types within a local jurisdiction,the provision will also include specific percentage thresholds for each non-duplex Middle Housing type, in anticipation that some lots or parcels will allow more than one Middle Housing type. However, not all middle housing types are required to be allowed on the same lots.This is depicted in the illustration below: Performance Approach Memo Housing RAC#9 Page I 1 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 1 OF 3 i.e.Goal-protected, Infrastructure-Constrained, Note: The distribution of Master Planned Communities, permitted Middle Housing types Regulatory Compliance will vary by jurisdiction Triplexes 80% Not included OAR 660-046- in calculation 0205(2) lands Quadplexes 70°70 Townhouses Cottage Included in Single-Family 60°%o Clusters calculation Duplex 50% Circles are illustrative and not to scale It should be noted that our draft concept still includes an alternative acceptable standard which allows local governments to regulate middle housing based on minimum lot size as provided in the minimum compliance standards.The percentages in this illustration would be an alternative path for a local jurisdiction. Staff is comfortable with these percentages, but is open to negotiation, especially with housing advocates and local jurisdictions. If staff moves forward with this approach,the final recommendation will be developed by DLCD staff, and the final decision on acceptable percentage thresholds will be by LCDC.The draft concept includes the following provisions: In adopting a comprehensive plan or land use regulations to allow Middle Housing,a local government must include findings demonstrating that on land deemed applicable in OAR 660-046-0205,excluding lands provided in OAR 660-046-0205(2): - The regulations will allow all Middle Housing types other than duplexes within a jurisdiction to implement Middle Housing; - At a minimum, a local government must allow Middle Housing types other than duplexes on the following proportion of lots or parcels: o Triplexes must be allowed on 80%of lots or parcels in a Large City; o Quadplexes must be allowed on 70%of lots or parcels in a Large City; o Townhouses must be allowed on 60%of lots or parcels in a Large City; and o Cottage Clusters must be allowed on 50%of lots or parcels in a Large City. - An equity metric provision.Two potential approaches are outlined below: Potential Approaches to Equity Metrics Census Block Group ACS Analysis Parcel-Level Assessed Value Comparison The regulations will allow at least one Middle The median real market property value, including Housing type other than duplexes on 50 percent of both land and improvement value from assessor data,of lots or parcels deemed applicable in OAR Performance Approach Memo Housing RAC#9 Page 1 2 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 2 OF 3 all residential lots and parcels within each Census 660-046-0205 that do not allow Middle Housing block group,within a Large City. types other than duplexes may not exceed 125 percent of the median real market property value of lots or parcels that allow at least one Middle Housing type other than duplexes. Allowing Middle Housing One key concern by Department staff is the potential for a "percentage of allowance"threshold to create scenarios where local jurisdictions technically allow middle housing as a permitted use, but functionally regulate middle housing to such a high degree that market factors incentivize the development of single-family detached dwellings in all,or nearly all,development scenarios.To respond to this, DLCD staff developed the following provision: A middle housing type is"allowed"on a lot or parcel when the following criteria are met: - The middle housing type is a permitted use under the same administrative process as a single-family detached dwelling in the same zone; - The lot or parcel has sufficient square footage to allow the middle housing type with the applicable minimum lot size requirement; - Maximum density requirements do not prohibit the development of the middle housing type on that lot or parcel;and - The applicable siting or design standards do not individually or cumulatively cause unreasonable cost or delay as provided in OAR 660-046-0210(3). The rationale for the standard above is that if a given lot or parcel allows a middle housing type as a permitted use, but is not a sufficient size to accommodate that permitted use under applicable maximum density or minimum lot size standards,that lot or parcel inherently does not"allow"that Middle Housing type. In order to construct the Middle Housing type,an applicant would need to change an intrinsic characteristic(i.e.the size)of the lot or parcel,typically through a lot consolidation process,which, as discussed at length on the Rulemaking and Technical Advisory Committees, is a significant preventative factor for the development of Middle Housing due to the associated land cost and availability restrictions. Performance Approach Memo Housing RAC#9 Page 1 3 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 3 OF 3 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFSTATE OF 0 ARCH IVESD!VISION ev BEVCLARNO F- — fi STEPHANIECLARK SECRETARY OF STATE I1-: :v DIRECTOR JEFF M ORGAN 800 SUMMER STREET NE INTERIM DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE 8g9 SALEM,OR97310 503-373-0701 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FLED INCLUDING STATEMENT OF NEED&FISCAL IMPACT 08/26/2020 7:58 AM CHAPTER660 ARCHIVESDIVISION LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM ENT SECRETARY OF STATE FILING CAPTION:Amend and adopt rules in accordance with House Bill 2001 (2019)and ORS197.758 LAST DAY AND TI M E TO OFFER CO M M ENT TO AGENCY: 11/12/2020 8:30 AM TheAgency requests public comment on whether other options should be considered for achieving the rule'ssubstantive goals while reducing negative economic impact of the rule on business CONTACT:Casaria Taylor 635 Capitol Street Filed By: 503-934-0065 Salem,OR 97301 Casaria Taylor casaria.taylor&tate.or.us Rules Coordinator H EARI N G(S) Auxilary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon advance request.Notify the contact listed above. DATE:09/25/2020 DATE: 11/12/2020 TIME:8:00 AM TIME:8:00 AM OFFICER:LCDC OFFICER:LCDC ADDRESS:Virtual Hearing ADDRESS:Virtual Hearing no address no address Salem,OR97301 Salem,OR97301 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: View the LCDC website for more information View the LCDC website for more information https://www.oregon.gov/Icd/Commission/Pages/Meetings.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/Icd/Commission/Pages/Meetings.asp: NEED FOR THE RULE(S): To adopt rules in accordance with House Bill 2001 (2019)and ORS197.758. DOCUM ENTSRELI ED UPON,AND W H ERE TH EY ARE AVAI LABLE: OAR660-008;OAR660-015;OAR660-023;OAR660-037;ORS 197 are available at the department,635 Capitol Street NE,Salem,OR97301 and online. FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT: The Large and Metro Cities Middle Housing Draft Administrative rules may result in fiscal and economic impacts including: Compliance costs for local governments to amend local development regulationsfor consistency with the draft rules and for DLCD to review those amendments. Impacts to the public,development-related businesses,and local governments in the form of increasesto property values,property taxes,and/or business and investment opportunities as a result of increased development potential. Impacts to local governments resulting from differences in system development charge revenue,property tax revenue, PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 1 OF 67 Page 1 of 67 and/or cost of providing services due to a shift in the type and location of housing developed as a result of changes to local development regulations. The anticipated fiscal and economic impacts in each of these categories are discussed in more detail below.There are no compliance costs for businesses,as the proposed rule does not apply to businesses directly,and the relevant businesses already must comply with local regulationsfor development. COST OF COMPLIANCE: (1)Identify any state agencies,units of local government,and members of the public likely to be economically affected by the rule(s).(2)Effect on Small Businesses'(a)Estimate the number and type of small businesses subject to the rule(s);(b)Describe the expected reporting,recordkeeping and administrative activities and cost required to comply with the rule(s);(c)Estimate the cost of professional serviced equipment supplies,labor and increased administration required to comply with the rule(s). Code Amendments for Compliance Local Government Costs HB 2001 requires,and the proposed rules echo the requirement,that Large Cities(citieswith a population greater than 25,000 outside of a metropolitan services district,areas with urban services,and citieswith a population greater than 1,000 within the Metro region)comply with the requirement to amend their acknowledged comprehensive plans or land use regulations to allow the required middle housing. The rules also require,before adopting of any such amendments,that large cities provide for DCLD review of proposed changes. This is anticipated to have a fiscal impact on large cities. The fiscal impact on an individual city will vary depending on how the city chooses to comply with HB 2001 and the proposed rules.Pursuant to the legislative directive in HB 2001,DLCD is developing model code language simultaneously with rulemaking,sojurisdictionswill have the option to simply adopt the model code language,which is anticipated to have a lower fiscal impact than if a city alternatively chose to develop its own amendments.Alt hough not all jurisdictions are expected to adopt the model code in its entirety due to its large cities have the option to adopt the model code in its entirety,adopt parts of the model code,or develop their own conforming code using the model code as a starting point.The proposed rules create a process by which local governments may identify specificstandardsthat modify or otherwise deviate from the siting and design standards outlined in the rules.Should a local government choose to pursue this alternative process,a narrative analysis of various economic,development feasibility,and equitable outcome factors is required to justify a deviation.The city may conduct thisanalysis internally or with the assistance of a professional consultant,either of which would incur additional costs to the city. Given the range of opt ions available to large cities,it is difficult for DCLD to estimate the exact fiscal impact. DCLD estimatesthat the cost of drafting and adopting code amendments could range from$50,000 for simply adopting the model code as written and in its entirety to$150,000 for drafting separate regulations. The cost a large city incurred would also depend on the extent of opportunitiesthe city provided for public comment and the costs imposed in that city for the process of formally adopting any amendments.The total cost could be higher for jurisdictions that conduct extensive public outreach or additional technical analysis. Cities and counties will not be required to send a Measure 56 notice to property owners when adopting the conforming amendments since the proposed code changes do not limit or prohibit previously allowed uses. State Agency Costs DLCD staff will be responsible for the review of post-acknowledgement plan.This review is anticipated to require a substantial staff effort due to the complexity and the variety of middle housing types and standards that staff will need to analyze. Additionally,there isthe potential for DLCD to incur Department of Justice legal fees in situationswhere DLCD files,or is a party to,an appeal of a local government's non-compliant development code to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)or is brought to intervene in a LUBA case between two other parties regarding an appeal.DLCD also maintains PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 2 OF 67 Page 2 of 67 authority to enact an enforcement order,which would incur legal fees and demand a modest increase in staff effort in time to review and compile legal records relative to the typical level. The fiscal impact to DLCD is difficult to estimate due to the varied complexity and review.DLCD staff will be required to review comprehensive plan documents and land use development code in addition to providing assistance to the local governments administeringthe proposed rules.DLCD anticipates that 2-3 full time equivalent staff capacity will be require to maintain the program. Increased Development Potential The proposed rules are expected to fiscally impact the following state agencies:DCLD. DCLD must review proposed amendments to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or local development regulationsfrom large cities,which will create fiscally impact the agency. There are no other state agencies that are specifically required to take action under the proposed rules and therefore the rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal impact on other state agencies. HB 2001 and the proposed rules require that large cities allow all middle housing types in areas zoned for residential use where single family homes are allowed and to allow duplexes on all lots or parcels in areas zoned for residential use where single family homes are allowed.The types of middle housing developments covered under HB 2001 and the rules include duplexes,triplexes,quadplexes,cottage clusters,and townhouses. This requirement that middle housing be allowed may increase the land value in areas where middle housing development is fi nancial ly feasible and where it offersfinancial returns that exceed those of single family development. This could affect the value of existing homes.It also provides property owners with a greater range of options for how to use their property.In locat ions where middle housing development isnot financially feasible or does not offer financial returns that exceed those for single family homes,DCLD does not anticipate there will be a change to development potential or resale values. Increased development potential will also vary by the type of middle housing development,though all middle housing types will be"competing"against single family homes and generally will only be built where the financial returns exceed those from single family home development.The greatest increase is development potential in many of the affected communities is likely to come from townhomes,which face fewer barriers outside the zoning code and have been broadly accepted by homebuilders and the development industry.This is especially true in new development situations and on infill lots with adequate street frontage.Duplexes have the greatest potential for single family conversion because they face fewer building code challenges.New development of duplex,triplex,and quadplex projects may be limited by lack of investors for rental housing and challengeswith condominium development for ownership housing. Cottage cluster development may have greater development potential on larger siteswith limited street frontage but may be more challenging to develop on smaller,infill lots in comparison to other middle housing types. Impacts to the Public:Resale Value of Existing Homes For existing homes,those that have a lower value and/or are in poor condition may be likely to be redeveloped as middle housing.Larger homes that are in need of major remodels may offer potential for conversion to a duplex,triplex,or quadplex(though building code requirements can be an issue).These types of homes may see an increase in resale value as a result of the proposed rules if there is sufficient demand for middle housing development or conversion and if the conversion results in a sufficient return on investment.This increase will be limited by the fact that in many potential infill situations,retaining and remodeling the existing single family home will still be the easiest and most financially feasible option.Desirable,well-maintained single family homes are unlikely to see a noticeable change in resale value since they would be unlikely targets for a developer or investor to convert to,or redevelop as,middle housing. Impacts to the Public: Increased Opt ions for Use of Property PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 3 OF 67 Page 3 of 67 The proposed rules also allow property owners a wider range of choices for how to use their property.Owners of single family homes may have the opportunity to create additional units on the property to generate rental income(or, potentially,sell units as condominiums)by adding units by converting existing space in a large home or by building additional units on the property.The financial impact is anticipated to be limited to those who choose to take advantage of the development potential.Given that the affected residential zones must currently allow development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)in conjunction with a single family home,thefinancial impact will be the incremental difference in rent (or,possibly,salesvalue)between what would have been achieved under ADU rules and what could be achieved for middle housing types under the proposed rules.The financial impact may be larger for properties that can add multiple units,but not every property will be able to take advantage of the maximum development potential allowed by zoning due to site-specific constraints. Impacts to the Public: Increased Property Taxes Due to constitutional limits imposed by Measure 50,a property's maximum assessed value(MAV)can increase by no more than 3%per year except under certain circumstances,which limitsthefiscal impact that property owners may experience from any increase in property value under the proposed rules.These circumstance under which the MAV can increase more than 3 percent include: New construction; Major improvement projects(e.g.additions,remodels,or rehabilitation); Land division;and Rezoning(where the property is used consistently with the new zoning). In these cases,the assessor determines how much Real Market Value(RM V)was added by the change(s)to the property and usesthe changed property ratio(CPR)for that property type to determine the additional taxable value. Impacts to Small and Large Businesses-Increased Opportunitiesfor Small-Scale Development In locations where middle housing development enabled by the proposed rules isfinancially feasible,this may create additional opportunitiesfor small development companies to engage in development activity at a scale that is appropriate for a small business. This could result in a positive fiscal impact for such businesses,who have increased business opportunities. Greenfield development tends to be more concentrated among larger development companies that are better capitalized and able to obtain more financing.However,even larger development companies rarely have more than 50 employees,so the impacts(positive and any slight negative impact to demand for larger-scale greenfield construct ion)are likely to be concentrated among businesses with fewer than 50 employees.The design,engineering, and other businesses that support development are likely to be the same regardless of housing type,or see very minor impacts to their business. In some communities,however,there could be an increase in the pace of development if the lack of available land in desirable places with access to services has been a barrier to housing production.In particular,housing production in certain"land-locked"jurisdictions in the Metro region(whose borders do not touch the urban growth boundary)may be limited by lack of developable land,limiting population growth.In those places,the proposed rules have the potential to increase the capacity for growth.In the Tong-term,the increased pace of development resulting from the proposed rules can influence the population forecast and the total number of housing unitsthat jurisdictions need to plan for. PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 4 OF 67 Page 4 of 67 It is difficult to say to what degree middle housing development will substitute for single family development vs. multifamily development.This depends on a number of factors,including unit size and tenure.In many Large and Metro Cities where larger multifamily buildings are financially feasible and relatively easy to finance,smaller rental housing (e.g.triplex and quadplex)is unlikely to compete and will substitute for relatively little multifamily housing.For-sale middle housing(e.g.most townhome development and some duplex and cottage cluster development)may substitute for single family development if the financial returnsfor middle housing types exceed those for single family homes and if builders and developers see this as an attractive opportunity for a segment of the housing market that is otherwise under-supplied. Impacts to Local Governments:System Development Charge Revenue Many cities have different system development charges(SDCs)for single family versus multifamily development, particularly for parks and transportation.Middle housing types are handled differently in different jurisdictions some treat all middle housing types as multifamily for purposes of calculating SDCs,while others treat some one way and some another.Few have specific fees for each middle housing type. The nature and extent of a change in SDC revenue would depend on several factors,including: The extent to which middle housing development is substituting for single family development vs.multifamily development; Whether middle housing development increases the overall pace of development; The SDC rates applied to each middle housing type;and The difference in SDCs between multifamily and single family rates. Impacts to Local Governments:Property Tax Revenue As noted above,property taxes will likely only be affected by the proposed rules to the extent that property owners seek to take advantage of the ability to develop new housing types.This would produce a modest increase in property tax revenue from those properties relative to remaining as single family housing.However,middle housing development is likely substituting(at least in part)for single family and/or multifamily development that would otherwise have occurred and may have been more likely to occur on vacant land rather than infill.Asa result,that increase in property value may be counterbalanced by a reduction in new property value from new development on vacant land. Impacts to Local Governments:Cost to Provide Services To the extent that the proposed rules increase infill development rather than greenfield development and lead to higher density new development as a result of middle housing development,thiscould modestly reduce the cost to local governments of providing urban services,since more compact development is typically more efficient to serve. DESCRIBE HOW SMALL BUSINESSESWERE INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPM ENT OF THESE RULE(S): Small businesses and representat ives were part of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 5 OF 67 Page 5 of 67 WASAN ADMINISTRATIVE RULE ADVISORY COM M ITTEE CONSULTED?YES HOUSING IMPACT STATEM ENT: MATERIALSAND LABOR COSTS IN CREASE ORSAVINGS The proposed rule is not anticipated to affect the cost of materials or labor since any increase in housing development overall is likely to be minor. ESTIMATED ADM IN I STRATIVE,CONSTRUCTION,OR OTHER COSTS I NCREASE OR SAVI N GS The proposed rule is not anticipated to affect the cost of administration,construction,or other factors since any increase in housing development overall is likely to be minor. LAND COSTS IN CREASE OR SAVINGS There are some situations in which the proposed rule could result in a modest impact to the cost of land for single-family residential development,as described below.The proposed rule is not anticipated to affect the cost of materials,labor, administration,or other factors,since any increase in housing development overall is likely to be minor.The proposed rule will not reduce the supply of land for housing and will either have no effect or a small positive effect on the overall supply of housing.The conditions in which the proposed rule could increase the cost of land for residential development, which would impact the cost to develop a single family home,are asfollows:Middle housing development isfinancially feasible;and the returnsfrom developing a middle housing type exceed those of developing a single family home on that lot.If these conditions are met,the developer of middle housing will likely be able to pay more for the lot than the developer of the single family home.This may increase the cost of land for the single family home. The reference case for t his analysis is a 1,200 square foot single family home on a 6,000 square foot lot.Because 1,200 square feet is small for a new single family home in the current market and it is possible that middle housing types could be as large or even larger on a per-unit basis,(depending on restrict ions on lot coverage and floor area ratio),the proposed rules will likely allow more units on the same land area.This makes it more likely that a developer would be able to pay more for the land to build middle housing than to build a 1,200 square foot single family home.However,it is worth noting that most new homes are as much astwice that size,and builders of these larger single family homes are also likely to be able to pay more for the land than someone trying to build a 1,200 square foot home.A large single family home and some forms of middle housing may have a more comparable ability to pay for land.Because the specific increases to land cost will depend on local market conditions,it isnot possible to estimate the cost increase based on available data. OTHERCOSTS INCREASE OR SAVINGS The proposed rule is not anticipated to affect other costs,since any increase in housing development overall is likely to be minor. RULES PROPOSED: 660-046-0000,660-046-0010,660-046-0020,660-046-0040,660-046-0050,660-046-0110,660-046-0115,660- 046-0120,660-046-0200,660-046-0205,660-046-0210,660-046-0215,660-046-0220,660-046-0225,660-046- 0230,660-046-0235 AMEND:660-046-0000 RULE SUM MARY:This rule outlines the purpose of the division in guiding the development of middle housing as provided in ORS197.758. CHANGESTO RULE: PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 6 OF 67 Page 6 of 67 660-046-0000 Purpose The purpose of this division is to prescribe standards guiding the development of Middle Housing types as provided in Oregon Laws 2019,chapter 639.OAR 660-046-0010 to OAR 660-046-0130235 establish standards related to the siting and design of Middle Housing types in urban growth boundaries.OAR 660-046-0300 to OAR 660-046-0370 establish the form and substance of an application and review process to delay the enactment of standards related to the siting and design of Middle Housing types in areas with significant infrastructure capacity deficiencies. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 7 OF 67 Page 7 of 67 AM EN D:660-046-0010 RULE SUM MARY:This rule describes which local governments are subject to the provisionsof the division and in which areas of the city's urban growth boundary.The rule also describes how a city may regulate middle housing in conjunction with protective measures the city may have adopted to be in compliance with the statewide land use planning goals. CHANGES TO RULE: 660-046-0010 Applicability (1)A local government that is a Medium City or Large City must comply with this division.¶ (2) Notwithstanding section (1),a local government need not comply with this division for:¶ (a) Lands that are not zoned for residential use,including but not limited to lands zoned primarily for commercial, industrial,agricultural,or public uses;¶ (b) Residentially zoned lands that do not allow for the development of a detached single-family home;or¶ (c) Lands that are not incorporated and that are zoned under an interim zoning designation that maintains the land's potential for planned urban development.¶ (3) Local governments may regulate Middle Housing to comply with protective measures(including plans,policies, and regulations)adopted and acknowledged pursuant to statewide land use planning goals.Where local governments have adopted,or shall adopt,regulations implementing the following statewide planning goals,the following provisions provide direction as to how those regulations shall be implemented in relation to Middle Housing,as required by OAR 660-046-0010.¶ (a)Goal 5: Natural Resources,Scenic,and Historic Areas- Pursuant to OAR 660 0chaoter 660.division 23,local governments must adopt land use regulations to protect identified resources under Goal 5,including regulations to comply with protective measures(including plans,policies,and regulations)applicable to Middle Housing.¶ (A)Goal 5 Riparian Areas,Wetlands,and Wildlife Habitat- Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0050 through 660-023- 0115,local governments must adopt land use regulations to protect water quality,aquatic habitat,and the habitat of threatened,endangered and sensitive species.This includes regulations applicable to Middle Housing to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 5.Local governments may apply regulations to Duplcxc5 Middle Housing that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.¶ (B)Goal 5: Historic Resources- Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0200(7),local governments must adopt land use regulations to protect locally significant historic resources-.This includes regulations applicable to#Middle Housing to comply with protective measures as it relates to the integrity of a historic resource or district. Protective measures shall be adopted and applied as provided in OAR 660-023-0200.Local governments may apply regulations to Middle Housing that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.except as provided below. If a local government has not adopted land use regulations to protect nationally significant historic resources.they must apply protective measures to Middle Housing as provided in OAR 660-023- 0200(8)(a) until the local government adopts land use regulations in compliance with OAR 660-023-0200.Local governments may not apply the following types of regulations specific to Middle Housing:¶ (i) Use,density,and occupancy restrictions that prohibit the development of Middle Housing on historic properties or districts that otherwise permit the development of detached single-family dwellings::or¶ (ii)Standards that prohibit the development of Middle Housing on historic properties or districts that otherwise permit the development of detached single-family dwellings_¶ (b)Goal 6:Air.Water and Land Resources Quality- Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0000(6).all waste and process discharges from future development.when combined with such discharges from existing developments.shall not threaten to violate.or violate applicable state or federal environmental aualitv statutes.rules.and standards. Local governments may apply regulations to Middle Housing in a manner that complies with federal and state air. water and land aualitv reauirements.11 k Goal 7:Areas Subject to Natural Hazards- Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0000(7),local governments must adopt comprehensive plans(inventories,policies,.and implementing measures)to reduce risk to people and property PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 8 OF 67 Page 8 of 67 from natural hazards.Such protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 7 apply to Middle Housing,including, but not limited to,restrictions on use,density,and occupancy in the following areas:¶ (A)Special Flood Hazard Areas as identified on the applicable FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)-;efand¶ (B)Other hazard areas identified in an adopted comprehensive plan or development code;provided the development of Middle Housing presents a greater risk to life or property than the development of detached single-family dwellings.Greater risk includes but is not limited to actions or effects such as:¶ (i) Increasing the number of people exposed to a hazard;¶ (ii) Increasing risk of damage to property,built,or natural infrastructure;and¶ (iii) Exacerbating the risk by altering the natural landscape,hydraulics,or hydrology.¶ (Ed)Goal 15:Willamette Greenway-Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0005,cities and counties must review intensifications,changes of use or developments to insure their compatibility with the Willamette River Greenway.Local governments may regulate Middle Housing to comply with Goal 15 protective measures that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.¶ (de)Goal 16: Estuarine Resources- Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0010(1)and OAR 660 0chapter 660.division 17, local governments must apply land use regulations that protect the estuarine ecosystem,including its natural biological productivity,habitat,diversity,unique features and water quality.Local governments may prohibit Middle Housing in areas regulated to protect estuarine resources under Goal 16.1f (ef)Goal 17:Coastal Shorelands- Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0010(2)and OAR 660-037-0080,local governments must apply land use regulations that protect shorelands for water-dependent recreational,commercial,and industrial uses.This includes regulations applicable to Middle Housing to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 17.Local governments may apply regulations to OuplcxcsMiddle Housing that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.¶ (#g)Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes- Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0010(3),local governments must apply land use regulations to residential developments to mitigate hazards to life,public and private property,and the natural environment in areas identified as Beaches and Dunes.This includes regulations applicable to Middle Housing to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 18 including but not limited to restrictions on use, density,and occupancy;provided the development of Middle Housing presents a greater risk to life or property than development of detached single-family dwellings.Greater risk includes but is not limited to actions or effects such as:¶ (A) Increasing the number of people exposed to a hazard;¶ (B) Increasing risk of damage to property,built or natural infrastructure;and¶ (C) Exacerbating the risk by altering the natural landscape,hydraulics,or hydrology.¶ (4) For the purposes of assisting local iurisdictions in adopting reasonable siting and design standards for Middle Housing.the Commission adopts the following model Middle Housing Model Codes.The applicable Model Code adopted by reference in this section will be applied to Medium and Large Cities who have not acted to comply with the provisions of ORS 197.758 and this division and completely replaces and pre-empts any provisions of that local iurisdictions development code that conflict with the Model Code:1T (a)The Medium City Model Code as provided in Exhibit A:andTf (b)The Large City Model Code as provided in Exhibit B.TT (5)This division does not prohibit local governments from allowing:¶ (a)Single-family dwellings in areas zoned to allow for single-family dwellings;oil (b) Middle Housing in areas not required under this division. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 RULE ATTACH M ENTS DO NOT SHOW CHANGES.PLEASE CONTACT AGENCY REGARDING CHANGES. PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 9 OF 67 Page 9 of 67 A LAND USE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PG PROJECT MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM Model Code for Large Cities (LCDC DRAFT) DLCD Middle Housing Model Code DATE August 24, 2020 TO Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) FROM Matt Hastie, Cathy Corliss, and Kate Rogers,Angelo Planning Group CC Ethan Stuckmayer and Robert Mansolillo, DLCD Project Team Middle Housing Model Code for Large Cities User's Guide: Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019) (HB 2001) requires that "Large Cities" (defined as cities with a population of 25,000 or more and each county or city within a metropolitan service district) must allow: (1) all middle housing types in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings; and (2) a duplex on each lot or parcel zoned for residential use that allows for the development of detached single-family dwellings. Middle housing, which HB 2001 defines as duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses, provides an opportunity to increase housing supply in developed neighborhoods and can blend in well with detached single-family dwellings. The bill allows local governments to regulate siting and design of middle housing, provided that the regulations do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage middle housing development through unreasonable costs or delay. When regulating siting and design of middle housing, Large Cities should balance concerns about neighborhood compatibility and other factors against the need to address Oregon's housing shortage by removing barriers to development and should ensure that any siting and design regulations do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage the development of middle housing through unreasonable costs or delay. Large Cities may develop their own standards in compliance with the requirements of HB 2001. This model code may provide guidance toward that end. However, if Large Cities do not wish to prepare their own standards or if Large Cities do not adopt the required code amendments by June 30, 2022, they must directly apply ANGELO PLANNING GROUP angeloplanning.com 921 SW Washington Street,Suite 468 p:503.224.6974 Ppa1cy oo8 5 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 10 OF 67 f:503.227.3679 Page 10 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 2 of 38 this model code prepared by the Department of Land and Conservation Development (DCLD) to development in their jurisdictions. The model code is intended to be straightforward and implementable by Large Cities throughout the state, and is consistent with the requirements and intent of HB 2001. The model code will be adopted by reference into Oregon Administrative Rules. To the extent they are applicable, the Administrative Rules contained in Chapter 660, Division 46 apply to and may be used to interpret this model code. Chapter 1. Combined Standards for All Middle Housing Sections: A. Purpose B. Definitions C. Applicability D. Relationship to Other Regulations E. Duplex,Triplex and Quadplex Examples A. Purpose The purpose of this model middle housing code ("code") is to implement HB 2001, codified in ORS 197.758 et seq, by providing siting and design standards for middle housing developed in areas 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. "Building footprint" means the horizontal area as seen in plan, measured from outside of all exterior walls and supporting columns. It includes dwellings and attached garages and carports. It does not include detached garages or carports, accessory structures, trellises, patios, and areas of porch, deck, and balcony less than 30 inches from finished grade, or cantilevered covers, porches or projections which do not have a post touching the ground or ramps and stairways required for access. 2. "Common courtyard" means a common area for use by residents of a cottage cluster. A common courtyard may function as a community yard. Hard and soft landscape features may be included in a common courtyard, such as lawn, groundcover, trees, shrubs, patios, benches, or gazebos. Pedestrian paths must be included as part of a common courtyard. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 11 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 11 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 3 of 38 3. "Common wall" means a wall or set of walls in a single structure shared by two or more dwelling units. The common wall must be shared for at least 25 percent of the length of the side of the building of the dwelling units. The common wall may be any wall of the building, including the walls of attached garages. 4. "Cottage" means an individual dwelling unit that is part of a cottage cluster. 5. "Cottage cluster" means a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre, each with a footprint of less than 900 square feet, located on a single lot or parcel that includes a common courtyard. Cottage cluster may also be known as "cluster housing," "cottage housing," "bungalow court," "cottage court," or "pocket neighborhood." 6. "Cottage cluster project" means a development site with one or more cottage clusters. Each cottage cluster as part of a cottage cluster project must have its own common courtyard. 7. "Detached single family dwelling" means a detached structure on a lot or parcel that is comprised of a single dwelling unit. Detached single family dwellings may be constructed off-site, e.g., manufactured dwellings or modular homes. 8. "Door area" is the area of the portion of a door other than a garage door that moves and does not include the frame. 9. "Duplex" means two dwelling units on a lot or parcel in any configuration. In instances where a development can meet the definition of a duplex and also meets the definition of a primary dwelling unit with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), the applicant shall specify at the time of application review whether the development is considered a duplex or a primary dwelling unit with an ADU. See Figure 3 through Figure 8 in Section E for examples of possible duplex configurations. 10. "Floor area" means the total area of all floors of a building. Floor area is measured for each floor from the exterior faces of a building or structure. Floor area includes stairwells, ramps, shafts, chases, and the area devoted to garages and structured parking. Floor area does not include the following (see Figure 1): • Areas where the elevation of the floor is 4 feet or more below the adjacent right-of way; • Roof area, including roof top parking; • Roof top mechanical equipment; and • 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. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 12 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 12 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 4 of 38 Figure 1.Areas Excluded from Floor Area Calculation GARAGE DWELLING GRADE UNIT AT RIGHT-OF-WAY j gArea excluded from floor area calculation 11. "Floor area ratio (FAR)" means the amount of floor area of a building or structure in relation to the amount of site area, expressed in square feet. For example, a floor area ratio of 2 to 1 means two square feet of floor area for every one square foot of site area. FAR is calculated by dividing the total floor area (as defined in Section (B)(6)) of all buildings on a site by the total site area, after subtracting any required or planned dedication of public rights-of-way and/or designation of private rights-of-way(See Figure 2). Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 13 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 13 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 5 of 38 Figure 2. Floor Area Ratio(FAR) Calculation 441, Aiy OA Floor Area • O OSite Area FAR — Al +A2 B 12. "Frontage" means the portion of a lot or parcel that abuts a street. 13. "Goal Protected Lands" means lands protected or designated pursuant to the following statewide planning goals: • Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; • Goal 6 Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality • Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; • Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; • Goal 16 Estuarine Resources; • Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; • Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes. 14. "Infrastructure-constrained lands" means lots or parcels that are not currently served by water, sewer, storm drainage, or transportation services; and where the local government is not able to correct the infrastructure limitation with an Infrastructure Based Time Extension Request (IBTER) due to jurisdictional, cost, or other limitations; and which cannot be remedied by future development of middle housing on the subject lot or parcel. 15. "Lot or parcel" means any legally created unit of land. 16. "Middle housing" means duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 14 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 14 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 6 of 38 17. "Quadplex" means four dwelling units on a lot or parcel in any configuration. See Figure 12 and Figure 13 in Section E for examples of possible quadplex configurations. 18. "Site area" means the total area of a development site calculated after subtracting any required or planned dedication of public rights-of-way and/or designation of private rights- of-way. 19. "Townhouse" means a dwelling unit constructed in a row of two or more attached units, where each dwelling unit is located on an individual lot or parcel and shares at least one common wall with an adjacent unit. A townhouse is also commonly called a "rowhouse," "attached house," or "common-wall house." 20. "Townhouse project" means one or more townhouse structures constructed, or proposed to be constructed, together with the development site where the land has been divided, or is proposed to be divided, to reflect the townhouse property lines and the commonly owned property, if any. 21. "Triplex" means three dwelling units on a lot or parcel in any configuration. See Figure 9 through Figure 11 in Section E for examples of possible triplex configurations. 22. "Window area" means the aggregate area of the glass within each window, including any interior grids, mullions, or transoms. 23. "Zoned for residential use" means a zoning district in which residential dwellings are the primary use and which implements a residential Comprehensive Plan map designation. C. Applicability 1. Applicability of Code Sections. a. Code sections applicable to all middle housing types are: Chapter 1, Sections A. Purpose, B. Definitions, C. Applicability, and D. Relationship to Other Regulations. b. Code standards applicable to specific housing types are listed below: • Duplexes: Chapter 2. • Triplexes: Chapter 3. • Quadplexes: Chapter 3. • Townhouses: Chapter 4. • Cottage clusters: Chapter 5. 2. Applicability by Development Type and Location. a. Except as specified in subsection (b) of this section (C)(2), the standards in this code allow for the following development on lots or parcels zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single family dwellings: Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 15 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 15 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 7 of 38 • New duplexes and those created through conversion of existing detached single family dwellings. • New triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses, and those created through conversion of existing detached single family dwellings or duplexes. b. Exceptions. The standards in this code do not allow the following, unless otherwise permitted by the development code through clear and objective standards, criteria, and procedures: • On goal-protected or infrastructure-constrained lands, the creation of triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, or townhouses, or the creation of more than two dwelling units on a single lot or parcel, including accessory dwelling units. • On lands that are not zoned for residential use, the creation of middle housing. This includes lands zoned primarily for commercial, industrial, agricultural, public, or mixed uses, even if those zones allow for the development of detached single family dwellings. D. Relationship to Other Regulations 1. Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between this code and other standards applicable to a middle housing development, the standards of this code control. 2. Public Works Standards. Clear and objective exceptions (as required by ORS 197.307(4)) to public works standards granted to single family dwellings shall also be granted to duplexes. 3. Protective Measures. Middle housing shall comply with protective measures (plans, policies, or regulations) adopted pursuant to statewide land use planning goals (e.g., environmental and natural hazard protections). E. Duplex, Triplex, and Quadplex Examples The following figures illustrate examples of possible configurations for duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. Other configurations may also be acceptable, provided the development meets the definition of duplex, triplex, or quadplex, pursuant to Section B. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 16 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 16 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 8 of 38 Figure 3. Stacked Duplex Figure 4. Side-by-Side Duplex tor. IN Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 17 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 17 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 9 of 38 Figure 5. Duplex Attached by Garage Wall ,, iilkIPI .•-• . stir 1 ._______ ,.. .. 1 , , ______________ ___ ____ _______.... Figure 6. Duplex Attached by Breezeway , _ r---1 __ _________ Qp� 1�L�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 18 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 18 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 10 of 38 Figure 7. Detached Duplex Units Side-by-Side Figure 8. Detached Duplex Units Front and Back NI' .---"'--.- ,---- --' Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 19 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 19 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 11 of 38 Figure 9.Attached Triplex Front and Back uNITa UNIT 2 U�11T 1 •7 r • - Figure 10.Attached Triplex Side-by-Side UNIT 1 UNIT2 - UNIT 3 Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 20 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 20 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 12 of 38 Figure 11. Detached Triplex Side-by-Side UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 _ ------Cs\i- ......... --'- 11.----".-- _.. .JL ....."--- ,---'. , _ Figure 12. Stacked Quadplex UNIT 2 UNIT 1 _ ti UNIT4 _ UNIT - sTRF.-� Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 21 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 21 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 13 of 38 Figure 13. Detached Quadplex 4P UNIT 1 I UNITS''''''''"-•-._,__,--^"'"--''--':."--:--r- - ' - 'UNIT 2 EET —_ .-. p9 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 22 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 22 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 14 of 38 Chapter 2. Duplexes Sections: A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process B. Development Standards C. Design Standards D. Duplex Conversions A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process Duplexes are permitted outright on lots or parcels zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single family dwellings. Duplexes are subject to the same approval process as that for detached single family dwellings in the same zone and are subject only to clear and objective standards, approval criteria, conditions, and procedures. Alternatively, an applicant may choose to submit an application for a duplex subject to discretionary standards and criteria adopted in accordance with ORS 197.307, if such a process is available. B. Development Standards Except as specified below, duplexes shall meet all clear and objective development standards that apply to 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 Density.The jurisdiction's pre-existing density maximums and minimum lot sizes for duplexes do not apply. 2. Setbacks. A minimum front setback of greater than 20 feet or a minimum rear setback of greater than 15 feet except for those minimum setbacks applicable to garages and carports. 3. Off-Street Parking. Any off-street parking requirement. C. Design Standards New duplexes shall meet all clear and objective design standards (e.g., entry orientation, window coverage, articulation, etc.)that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, unless those standards conflict with this code. Facades of dwellings that are separated from the street property line by another dwelling are exempt from meeting building design standards. Any design standards that apply only to duplexes are invalid. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 23 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 23 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 15 of 38 D. Duplex Conversions Conversion of an existing detached single family structure to a duplex is allowed, pursuant to Chapter 1, 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 A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process Triplexes and quadplexes are permitted outright wherever they are allowed as provided in Chapter 1, Section C (Applicability). Triplexes and quadplexes are subject to the same approval process as that for detached single family dwellings in the same zone and are subject only to clear and objective standards, approval criteria, conditions, and procedures. Alternatively, an applicant may choose to submit an application for a triplex or quadplex subject to discretionary standards and criteria adopted in accordance with ORS 197.307, if such a process is available. B. Development Standards 1. Applicability. a. Triplexes and quadplexes shall meet: • The standards in subsections (2)through (7) of this section (B). • All other clear and objective development standards that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone (including, but not limited to, lot size and dimensions, minimum and maximum setbacks, and building height), unless those standards conflict with this code and except as specified in subsections (1)(b) and (2) through (7) 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, minimum landscape area, or minimum open space standards. • The jurisdiction's development standards that apply only to triplexes, quadplexes, or multifamily development. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 24 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 24 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 16 of 38 2. Number of Units. This code does not allow for the creation of more than four(4) dwelling units on a lot, including accessory dwelling units. 3. Maximum Density. The jurisdiction's pre-existing density maximums do not apply. 4. Setbacks. Minimum front setbacks greater than 10 feet and minimum rear setbacks greater than 10 feet are invalid, except for those minimum setbacks applicable to garages and carports. 5. Building Height. A maximum height of less than 35 feet or three (3) stories is invalid. Building height is measured in accordance with the development code. 6. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 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 for Detached Single Family Maximum Dwellings FAR 3,000 sf or less 1.4 to 1 More than 3,000 sf, up to and including 5,000 sf 1.1 to 1 More than 5,000 sf, up to and including 10,000 sf 0.7 to 1 More than 10,000 sf but less than 20,000 sf 0.6 to 1 20,000 sf or more 0.4 to 1 7. Off-Street Parking. a. Required Off-Street Parking. The minimum number of required off-street parking spaces is: i. In zones with a minimum lot size of less than 5,000 square feet, one (1) off-street parking space per development. ii. In zones with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet or more, two (2) off-street parking spaces per development. 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 detached single family dwelling to a triplex or quadplex, including those created through the addition of detached units. 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. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 25 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 25 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 17 of 38 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. C. Design Standards 1. Applicability. 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. 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 (see Figure 14); ii. Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the street (see Figure 15); iii. Face a common open space that is adjacent to the street (see Figure 16); or iv. Open onto a porch (see Figure 17). The porch must: (A) Be at least 25 square feet in area; and (B) Have at least one entrance facing the street or have a roof. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 26 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 26 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 18 of 38 Figure 14. Main Entrance Facing the Street I � DWELLING UNIT Main Entrance I I � I Eo � I Longest street-facing wall of dwelling unit I l I I I I Front lot line Sidewalk STREET Figure 15. Main Entrance at 45° Angle from the Street I � ME LUNG UNIT I � Main Entrance Longest street-facing wail of dweeEng unit I l I I I l I l Front lot line Sidewalk J STREET �p� �L�q,l�Qidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 27 OF 67 August 24,2020 FF'' �UJ�UJ /'► Page 27 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 19 of 38 Figure 16. Main Entrance Facing Common Open Space DWELLING Front lot line—L UNIT • ti Main Entrance Longest street-facing wall of dwelling unit --I8'MAXI COMMON , m Lu OPEN SPACEth Main Entrance DWELLING li UNIT •• • • L Idle Housing Model Code August 24,2020 VF 1g_oLob ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 28 OF 67 Page 28 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 20 of 38 Figure 17. Main Entrance Opening onto a Porch I � DWELLING UNIT I � Main /• PORCHJ Entrance _ _ I .� g to Longest street-facing Porch wall of dwelling unit entry I I I I I I I I Front tot line + 1- Sidewalk STREET 3. Windows. A minimum of 15 percent of the area of all street-facing facades must include windows or entrance doors. Facades separated from the street property line by a dwelling are exempt from meeting this standard. See Figure 18. Figure 18. Window Coverage %j% 74 '1% r ii.::.:; rA frA . 4 D , . , 4 rd... STREET- FACING FACADE Area subject to 15%window&entrace door coverage requirement Qualifying window coverage :4 Qualifying entrace door coverage Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 29 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 29 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 21 of 38 4. Garages and Off-Street Parking Areas. Garages and off-street parking areas shall not be located between a building and a public street (other than an alley), except in compliance with the standards in subsections (a) and (b) of this subsection (C)(4). a. The garage or off-street parking area is separated from the street property line by a dwelling; or b. The combined width of all garages and outdoor on-site parking and maneuvering areas does not exceed a total of fifty percent of the street frontage (see Figure 19). Figure 19. Width of Garages and Parking Areas I . PROPERTY LINE —A'— A2 — A' SIDEWALK STREET g OA Garage and on-site parking and maneuvering areas 0 Total street frontage A' +Az + A3 < 50% �p� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 30 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 30 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 22 of 38 5. Driveway Approach. Driveway approaches must comply with the following: a. The total width of all driveway approaches must not exceed 32 feet per frontage, as measured at the property line (see Figure 20). 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 (see Figure 20). If approaches are separated, they must meet the jurisdiction's driveway spacing standards applicable to local streets. 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 alley, access must be taken from the alley (see Figure 21). 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. iii. Triplexes and quadplexes on lots or parcels with frontages only on local streets may have either: • Two driveway approaches not exceeding 32 feet in total width on one frontage; or • One maximum 16-foot-wide driveway approach per frontage (see Figure 22). Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 31 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 31 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 23 of 38 Figure 20. Driveway Approach Width and Separation on Local Street I I I I I I DWELLING DWELLING DWELLING DWELLING UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT I I I I I I I I Main Main Main Main Entrance • Entrance - Entrance - Entrance I I a 0 ront lot line Sidewalk ICJ ,- i, 1 Width X1 Width X2 Width X3 Width X4 LOCAL STREET l !]I 1 X'+Xz+X3+ X4 must not exceed 32 feet per frontage, { R } Driveway approaches may be separated when located on a local street Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 32 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 32 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 24 of 38 Figure 21.Alley Access IMPROVED ALLEY I I I I I I I I I- w CC I II I I � J I I I I w I I I DWELLING DWELLING DWELLING DWELLING UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 0 I I 0 Main Main Main Main 0 L : TLLTL. ' ancentrance U I I I I Front lot line Sidewalk LOCAL STREET Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 33 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 33 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 25 of 38 Figure 22. Driveway Approach Options for Multiple Local Street Frontages rt I I Main Entrance DWELLING UNIT i I 0 I I DWELLING l UNIT w Main Entrance IF- [f) J I I Q 0 J DWELLING ! DWELLING UNIT UNIT I I Main Main Entrance Entrance � 1 0 ` L /—Front lot line It T _ r _ Sidewalk ], LOCAL STREET Width x' Width x' Options for site with more than one frontage on local streets: 0 Two driveway approaches not exceeding 32 feet in total width on one frontage(as measured X1 +X2);or 0 One maximum 16-foot-wide driveway approach per frontage. D. Conversions to Triplex and Quadplex Internal conversion of an existing detached single family structure or duplex to a triplex or quadplex is allowed, pursuant to Chapter 1, Section C (Applicability), provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the development code. Qp� 1 gL�q,I�Qidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 34 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 34 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 26 of 38 Chapter 4. Townhouses Sections A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process B. Development Standards C. Design Standards A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process Townhouse projects are permitted outright wherever they are allowed as provided in Chapter 1, Section C (Applicability). Townhouse structures are 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 project is subject to the applicable land division approval process. Townhouse projects are subject only to clear and objective standards, approval criteria, conditions, and procedures. Alternatively, an applicant may choose to submit an application for a townhouse project subject to discretionary standards and criteria adopted in accordance with ORS 197.307, if such a process is available. B. Development Standards 1. Applicability. a. Townhouses shall meet the standards in subsections (3), (4), and (5) of this section (B). b. Townhouse projects shall meet: • The standards in subsections (2), (5), and (6) 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, except as specified in this section (B): • Additional development standards of the applicable base zone related to the standards addressed under subsections (2) through (6) of this section (B). • Development standards of the applicable base zone related to lot dimensions, lot coverage, landscape or open space area, 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. Maximum Density. The maximum density for a townhouse project is as follows: • In zones with a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet or less,townhouse projects are allowed two (2) times the allowed density for detached single family dwellings. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 35 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 35 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 27 of 38 • In zones with a minimum lot size of more than 2,500 square feet but less than 5,000 square feet, townhouse projects are allowed three (3) times the allowed density for detached single family dwellings. • In zones with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet or more, townhouse projects are allowed four (4) times the allowed density for detached single family dwellings. 3. Setbacks.Townhouses shall meet the minimum and maximum setback standards that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, except as noted below: • Front: Minimum front setbacks greater than 10 feet are invalid, except those applicable to garages or carports. • Rear: Minimum rear setbacks greater than 10 feet and rear setbacks for lots with rear alley access are invalid. • Street Side: Minimum street side yard setbacks greater than 10 feet are invalid. • Interior Side: o The minimum setback for a common wall lot line where units are attached is zero (0) feet. o The minimum setback for an exterior wall at the end of a townhouse structure that faces an interior side lot line is five (5) feet. 4. Building Height. Townhouses shall meet the maximum building height standards that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, except a maximum height of less than 35 feet or three (3) stories is invalid. Building height is measured in accordance with the development code. 5. Off-Street Parking. a. Required Off-Street Parking. The minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for a townhouse project is one (1) space per unit. Spaces may be provided on individual lots or in a shared parking area on a common tract. A credit for on-street parking shall be granted for some or all of the required off-street parking as provided in subsection (b). 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 Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 36 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 36 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 28 of 38 iv. The space must not obstruct a required sight distance area. 6. Areas Owned in Common. 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 New townhouses shall meet the design standards in subsections (1) through (4) of this section (C). Mandates for construction of a garage or carport and any other design standards are invalid. 1. Entry Orientation.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: i. Face the street (see Figure 14); ii. Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the street (see Figure 15); iii. Face a common open space or private access or driveway; or iv. Open onto a porch (see Figure 17). The porch must: (A) Be at least 25 square feet in area; and (B) Have at least one entrance facing the street or have a roof. 2. Unit definition. Each townhouse must include at least one of the following on at least one street-facing façade (see Figure 23): 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 covered entryway with a minimum depth of 4 feet, or g. 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. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 37 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 37 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 29 of 38 Figure 23. Townhouse Unit Definition .440 - � off© - _ III G - { q } Roof dormer,minumum of 4 feet wide 0 Balcony,minimum 2 deet deep and 4 feet wide.Accessible from interior room. 0 Bay window extending minimum of 2 feet from facade 0 Facade offset,minimum of 2 feet deep 0 Recessed entryway,minimum 3 feet deep { F 1 Covered entryway,minimum of 4 feet deep i (;, Porch,meets standards of subsection(1)(b)(iv)of section(C) 3. Windows. A minimum of 15 percent of the area of all street-facing facades on each individual unit must include windows or entrance doors. Half of the window area in the door of an attached garage may count toward meeting this standard. See Figure 18. 4. Driveway Access and Parking. Townhouses with frontage on a public street shall meet the following standards: a. Garages on the front facade of a townhouse, off-street parking areas in the front yard, and driveways in front of a townhouse are prohibited unless the following standards are Qp� 1 gL�q,I�Qidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 38 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 38 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 30 of 38 met (see Figure 24). For the purposes of this section (C)(4), "driveway approach" means the edge of a driveway where it abuts a public right-of-way. i. Each townhouse lot has a street frontage of at least 15 feet on a local street. ii. A maximum of one (1) driveway approach is allowed for every townhouse. Driveways may be shared. iii. Outdoor on-site parking and maneuvering areas do not exceed 12 feet wide on any lot. iv. The garage width does not exceed 12 feet, as measured from the inside of the garage door frame. Figure 24. Townhouses with Parking in Front Yard 15'MIN N /N 7 7\Z MAX 12' L - - - - -I MAX r LOCAL STREET b. The following standards 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 approach on the side of the corner lot. See Figure 25. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 39 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 39 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 31 of 38 Figure 25. Townhouses on Corner Lot with Shared Access SHARED ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY w w STREET iii. Townhouse projects that do not include a corner lot shall consolidate access for all lots into a single driveway. The driveway and approach are not allowed in the area directly between the front facade and front lot line of any of the townhouses. See Figure 26. Figure 26. Townhouses with Consolidated Access SHARED ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY ! I I I I zN7 7Ny I I I � I � ZNN j .7N7 STREET Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 40 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 40 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 32 of 38 iv. A townhouse project 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). Chapter 5. Cottage Clusters Sections: A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process B. Development Standards C. Design Standards A. Permitted Uses and Approval Process Cottage cluster projects are permitted outright wherever they are allowed as provided in Chapter 1, Section C (Applicability). Cottage cluster projects are subject to the same approval process as that for detached single family dwellings in the same zone and are subject only to clear and objective standards, approval criteria, conditions, and procedures, consistent with the requirements of ORS 197.307(4). Alternatively, an applicant may choose to submit an application for a cottage cluster project subject to discretionary standards and criteria adopted in accordance with ORS 197.307, if such a process is available. B. Development Standards 1. Applicability. a. Cottage clusters shall meet the standards in subsections (2)through (7) of this section (B). b. The following standards are invalid and do not apply to cottage clusters allowed by this code, except as specified in this section (B): • Additional development standards of the applicable base zone related to the standards addressed under subsections (2) through (7) of this section (B). • Development standards of the applicable base zone related to lot dimensions, lot coverage, landscape or open space area, or the siting or design of dwellings. • The jurisdiction's development standards that apply only to cottage clusters and that conflict with provisions of this code. 2. Minimum Lot Size and Dimensions. Cottage clusters shall meet the minimum lot size and width, and depth standards that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 41 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 41 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 33 of 38 3. Maximum Density.The jurisdiction's pre-existing density maximums do not apply. 4. Setbacks. Cottage clusters shall meet the minimum and maximum setback standards that apply to detached single family dwellings in the same zone, except that minimum setbacks in excess of the following are invalid: • Front setbacks: 10 feet • Side setbacks: 5 feet • Rear setbacks: 10 feet The minimum distance between all structures, including accessory structures, shall be in accordance with building code requirements. 5. Average Unit Size. The maximum average floor area for a cottage cluster is 1,400 square feet per dwelling unit. Community buildings shall be included in the average floor area calculation for a cottage cluster. 6. Building Height. The maximum building height is 25 feet or two (2) stories, whichever is greater. 7. Off-Street Parking. a. Required Off-Street Parking. The minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for a cottage cluster project is zero (0) spaces per unit with a floor area less than 1,000 square feet and one (1) space per unit with a floor area of 1,000 square feet or more. Spaces may be provided for individual cottages or in shared parking clusters. A credit for on-street parking shall be granted for some or all of the required off-street parking as provided in subsection (b). 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. C. Design Standards Cottage clusters shall meet the design standards in subsections (1) through (7) of this section (C). No other design standards shall apply to cottage clusters unless noted in this section. Mandates for construction of a garage or carport and any other design standards are invalid, except as specified in this Section (D). Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 42 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 42 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 34 of 38 1. Cottage Orientation. Cottages must be clustered around a common courtyard and must meet the following standards (see Figure 27): a. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of cottages within a cluster must be oriented to the common courtyard and must: i. Have a main entrance facing the common courtyard; ii. Be within 10 feet from the common courtyard, measured from the facade of the cottage to the nearest delineation of the common courtyard; and iii. Be connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path. b. Cottages within 20 feet of a street property line may have their entrances facing the street. c. Cottages not facing the common courtyard or the street must have their main entrances facing a pedestrian path that is directly connected to the common courtyard. 2. Common Courtyard Design Standards. Each cottage cluster must share a common courtyard in order to provide a sense of openness and community of residents. Common courtyards must meet the following standards (see Figure 27): a. The common courtyard must be a single, contiguous, useable piece. b. Cottages must abut the common courtyard on at least two sides of the courtyard. c. The common courtyard must contain a minimum of 150 square feet per cottage within the associated cluster. d. The common courtyard must be a minimum of 15 feet wide at its narrowest dimension. e. The common courtyard shall be developed with a mix of landscaping and lawn area, recreational amenities, hard-surfaced pedestrian paths, and/or paved courtyard area. Impervious elements of the common courtyard shall not exceed 75 percent of the total common courtyard area. f. Pedestrian paths qualify as part of a common courtyard. Parking areas, required setbacks, and driveways do not qualify as part of a common courtyard. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 43 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 43 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 35 of 38 Figure 27. Cottage Cluster Orientation and Common Courtyard Standards Alley I /—Cottage X r 7 )( I I t osb Pedestrian CD Porch ,' Path W Common A Courtyard fel>_< - ><7.' 15'MIN uProLerttir — — — Sidewalk Street Parking Public Street l A } A minimum of 50%of cottages must be oriented to the common courtyard- ( tj J JCottages oriented to the common courtyard must be within 10 feet of the courtyard- 0 Cottages must be connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path. Cottages must abut the courtyard on at least two sides of the courtyard- 1 b'1 t } The common courtyard must be at least 15 feet wide at it narrowest width- 0 Qp� 1 gL�q,I�Qidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 44 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 44 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 36 of 38 3. Community Buildings. Cottage cluster projects may include community buildings for the shared use of residents that provide space for accessory uses such as community meeting rooms, guest housing, exercise rooms, day care, or community eating areas. Community buildings must meet the following standards: a. Each cottage cluster is permitted one community building, which shall be included in the calculation of average floor area, pursuant to subsection (B)(5). b. A community building that meets the development code's definition of a dwelling unit must meet the maximum 900 square foot footprint limitation that applies to cottages, unless a covenant is recorded against the property stating that the structure is not a legal dwelling unit and will not be used as a primary dwelling. 4. Pedestrian Access. a. An accessible pedestrian path must be provided that connects the main entrance of each cottage to the following: i. The common courtyard; ii. Shared parking areas; iii. Community buildings; and iv. Sidewalks in public rights-of-way abutting the site or roadways if there are no sidewalks. b. The pedestrian path must be hard-surfaced and a minimum of five (5) feet wide. 5. Windows. Cottages within 20 feet of a street property line must meet any window coverage requirement that applies to detached single family dwellings in the same zone. 6. Parking Design (see Figure 28). a. Clustered parking. Off-street parking may be arranged in clusters of not more than five (5) contiguous spaces separated by at least four (4)feet of landscaping. Clustered parking areas may be covered. b. Parking location and access. i. Off-street parking spaces and vehicle maneuvering areas shall not be located: • Within of 20 feet from any street property line, except alley property lines; • Within five (5) feet from alley property lines; or • Between a street property line, except alley property lines, and cottages abutting the street property line. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 45 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 45 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 37 of 38 ii. Off-street parking spaces shall not be located within 10 feet of any other property line. Driveways and drive aisles are permitted within 10 feet of other property lines. c. Screening. Landscaping or architectural screening at least three feet tall shall separate clustered parking areas and parking structures from common courtyards and public streets. d. Garages and carports. Garages and carports (whether shared or individual) must not abut common courtyards. Garage doors for individual garages must not exceed 12 feet in width. 7. Existing Structures. On a lot or parcel to be used for a cottage cluster project, a pre-existing detached single family dwelling may remain within the cottage cluster project area under the following conditions: a. The existing dwelling may be nonconforming with respect to the requirements of this code. b. Existing dwellings may be expanded up to the maximum height or footprint required by this code; however, existing dwellings that exceed the maximum height, footprint, and/or unit size of this code may not be expanded. c. The floor area of the existing dwelling shall not count towards the maximum average floor area of a cottage cluster. Qp� 1 gL�q,pQidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 46 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 46 of 67 Model Code for Large Cities(LCDC DRAFT) 38 of 38 Figure 28. Cottage Cluster Parking Design Standards Alley (9)-51i -I, I - -------------------------------------CottageX ----------------------- I I I I I 7L 7 4' 4, Landscape - Buffer Pedestrian Portia J Z L]1 / Path � Carport 10 MI Common iii:›K Courtyard I I J. Driveway jr,_ 12 20' MIN Screening Garage L ,--ProEertwo= — — Sidewalk [ 1 1 1 _ 1 J Street Parking___/ Public Street I CDParking allowed in clusters of up to 5 spaces_Clusters separated by minimum 4 feet of landscaping_ ` R ' No parking or vehicle area within 20 feet from street property line(except alley). 0 No parking or vehicle area within 5 feet of alley property line. I f7 i No parking within 10 feet from other property lines. Driveways and drive aisles permitted within 10 feet. 0 I F ] Screening required between clustered parking areas or parking structures and public streets or common courtyards_ 0 I F 1 Garages and carports must not abut common courtyards.Garage doors far individual garages must not exceed 12 feet in width. 0 Qp� 1 gL�q,I�Qidle Housing Model CoATTACHMENT E/PAGE 47 OF 67 August 24,2020 F' �J(J A Page 47 of 67 AM END:660-046-0020 RULE SUM MARY:The rule defines terms and phrases that are used throughout the division. CHANGES TO RULE: 660-046-0020 Definitions As used in this division,the definitions in ORS 197.015 and ORS 197.758 et seq apply,unless the context requires otherwise._In addition:¶ (1) "A local gGovernment tThat hHas RNot aActed" means a local government that has not adopted acknowledged land use regulations that are in compliance with ORS 197.758 and this division.¶ (2) "Cottage Cluster"means a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre.each with a footprint of less than 900 sauare feet.Units may be located on a single Lot or Parcel.or on individual Lots or Parcels that include a common courtyard.¶ "Department" means the Department of Land Conservation and Development.¶ (34) "Detached single-family dwelling" means a detached structure on a Lot or Parcel that is comprised of a single dwelling unit,either site built or a manufactured dwelling.¶ (45) "Duplex" means two attached dwelling units on one Lot or Parcel.A Medium City may defir . C'wplcx to include two detached dwelling units on one Lot or Pux‘oe4a Lot or Parcel.A local government may define a Duplex to include two detached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel.¶ (6) "Goal Protected Lands"means lands protected or designated pursuant to any one of the following statewide planning goals:1T (a)Goal 5 Natural Resources.Scenic and Historic Areas.and Open Spaces:1T (b)Goal 6 Air.Water and Land Resource Oualitv:1T (c)Goal 7 Areas Subiect to Natural Hazards:lT (d)Goal 15 Willamette River Greenwav:1T (e)Goal 16 Estuarine Resources:4T (f)Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands:or1T (g)Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes.11 (7) "Infrastructure Constrained Lands"means lands where it is not feasible to provide acceptable water.sewer. storm drainage.or transportation services to serve new Triplexes.Quadplexes.Townhouses.or Cottage Cluster development:where the local government is not able to correct the infrastructure limitation by utilizing the process outlined in OAR 660-046-0300 through OAR 660-046-0370 due to cost.iurisdictional.or other limitations:and which cannot be remedied by future development of Middle Housing on the subiect Lot or Parcel.¶ (8) "Large City" means each city with a certified Portland State University Population Research Center estimated population of 25.000 or more or city with a population over 1.000 within a metropolitan service district.This also includes unincorporated areas of counties within a metropolitan service district that are provided with urban services as defined in ORS 195.065.1T (59) "Lot or Parcel" means any legally created unit of land.¶ (610) "Master Planned Community" means a site that is any one of the following:1t (a)Greater than 20 acres in size within a Large City or adiacent to the Large City within the urban growth boundary that is zoned for or proposed to be zoned for residential development for which a Large City proposes to adopt a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan:11 (b)Greater than 20 acres in size within a Large City or adiacent to the Large City within the urban growth boundary for which a Large City adopted a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master planafter the site was incorporated into the urban growth boundary:or1T (c)Added to the Large City's urban growth boundary after January 1.2021 for which the Large City proposes to adopt a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan.11 (11) "Medium City" means each city with a certified Portland State University Population Research Center PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 48 OF 67 Page 48 of 67 estimated population more than 10,000 and less than 25,000 and not within a metropolitan service district.¶ (712) "Middle Housing" means a-Duplex as dcfincd in section('1)es.Triplexes.Quadolexes.Cottage Clusters.and Townhouses.¶ (813) "Model Code" means the aoolicable model code developed by the Department contained in OAR 660-046-0 4010(5).5 (14) "Ouadolex" means four attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel.A local government may define a Ouadolex to include any configuration of four detached or attached dwelling units on one Lot or Parcel.TT (15) "Townhouse" means a dwelling unit that is part of a row of two or more attached units.where each unit is located on an individual Lot or Parcel and shares at least one common wall with an adiacent unit.TT (16) "Triplex" means three attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel.A local government may define a Triplex to include any configuration of three detached or attached dwelling units on one Lot or Parcel.TT (17) "Zoned for residential use" means a zoning district in which residential dwellings are the primary use and which implements a residential comprehensive plan map designation. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 49 OF 67 Page 49 of 67 AMEND:660-046-0040 RULE SUM MARY:This rule describes what actions are required of cities in order to comply with the requirementsof ORS 197.758.The rule outlines the implications of not acting to comply with the requirementsof ORS 197.758 including in circumstances where land use regulat ions are appealed. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0040 Compliance (1)A local government may adopt land use regulations or amend its comprehensive plan to comply with ORS 197.758 et seq and the provisions of this division.¶ (2)A local government may request from the Department an extension of the time allowed to complete the action in-under subsection(1) pursuant to ORS 197.758.11 {3)A Medium City tthe applicable sections of OAR 660-046-0300 through OAR 660-046-0370.11 (3)A Medium City which is A Local Government That hHas RNot aActed by June 30,2021 or within one year of aualifving as a Medium City pursuant to OAR 660-046-0050 and has not received an extension under section(2), shall directly apply the applicable Model Code contained in OAR 660-046-00130(54)in its entirety to all proposed Middle Housing development applications until such time as the Medium Citylocal government has adopted provisions under section(1).11 (4) If a Medium CityA Large City which is A Local Government That Has Not Acted by June 30.2022 or within two years of aualifving as a Large City pursuant to OAR 660-046-0050 and has not received an extension under section(2).shall directly apply the applicable Model Code contained in OAR 660-046-0010(4)for the specific Middle Housing type that is not in compliance with the relevant rules in this division to all proposed development applications for that specific Middle Housing type until such time as the local government has adopted provisions under section(1).11 (5) If a local government has adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan by the date provided under sections(3)and(4)and the city's land use regulations or comprehensive plan changes are subsequently remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals or an appellate court solely on procedural grounds,the Medium Citylocal government is deemed to have acted.Accordingly,the Medium Citvlocal government may continue to apply its own land use regulations and comprehensive plan as they existed prior to the adoption of land use regulations or comprehensive plan amendments that were the subject of procedural remand until the first of the two options:¶ (a)The Medium Citvlocal government has adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan in response to the remand;or¶ (b) 120 days after the date of the remand. If the Medium Citylocal government has not adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan within 120 days of the date of the remand,the Medium Citylocal government is deemed not to have acted under sections(3)and(4).11 (56) If a Medium Citylocal government has adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan by the date provided under sections(3)and the Medium City(4)and the local government's land use regulations or comprehensive plan changes are subsequently remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals or an appellate court on any substantive grounds,the city is deemed to have not acted under sections(3)and (4).11 (67) If a Medium Citylocal government acknowledged to be in compliance with this division subsequently amends its land use regulations or comprehensive plan,and those amendments are remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals or an appellate court,the city shall continue to apply its land use regulations and comprehensive plan as they existed prior to the amendments until the amendments are acknowledged.¶ (78) In the event that a Medium CityWhere a local government directly applies the Model Code in accordance with sections(3),(4)and(5),the Model Code completely replaces and pre-empts any provisions of that Medium Citylocal government's development code that conflict with the applicable sections of the Model Code. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 50 OF 67 Page 50 of 67 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 51 OF 67 Page 51 of 67 AM EN D:660-046-0050 RULE SUM MARY:This rule outlines t he timeline by which cities that were not previously a Medium City must comply with the provisions of ORS197.758 and the division. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0050 Eligible Local Governments (1) If a local government was not previously a Medium City and a certified Portland State University Population Research Center population estimate qualifies a Eity as a Medium City,the citylocal government must comply with this division within one year of its qualification as a Medium Citv.11 (2) If a local government was not previously a Large City and a certified Portland State University Population Research Center population estimate aualifies a it as a Large City.the local government must comply with this division within two years of its aualification as a Large City. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 52 OF 67 Page 52 of 67 AMEND:660-046-0110 RULE SUM MARY:This rule outlines the provisions a city may adopt to regulate the siting and design of middle housing in medium cities.This rule also includesa description of which standards cause unreasonable cost and delay to the development of middle housing in medium cities. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0110 Provisions Applicable to Duplexes in Medium Cities (1) Medium Cities may regulate Duplexes to comply with protective measures,including plans,policies and regulations,as provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3)T (2) Medium Cities may regulate siting and design of Duplexes,provided that the regulations;¶ (a)Are clear and objective standards,conditions,or procedures consistent with ORS 197.307(4);and¶ (b) Do not,individually or cumulatively,discourage the development of Duplexes through unreasonable costs or delay.¶ (3)Siting and design standards that create unreasonable cost and delay include any standards applied to Duplex development that are more restrictive than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.¶ (4)Siting and design standards that do not,individually or cumulatively,discourage the development of Duplexes through unreasonable cost and delay include only the following:¶ (a) Regulations to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to statewide land use planning goals provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3)1. (b) Permitted uses and approval process provided in OAR 660-046-0115;¶ (c)Siting standards provided in OAR 660-046-01201T (d) Design standards in Medium Cities provided in OAR 660-046-0125;¶ (e) Duplex Conversions provided in OAR 660-046-0130;and¶ (f)Any siting and design standards contained in the Model Code referenced in section{ ¶ {5) For the purposes of assisting Medium Cities in adopting rea:,ec abki citing and design standards for Dupkiies; the Commiooion adopts the following model Middle Housing code for Medium Cities.The Model Code provided in Exhibit A of this section will be applied to Medium Cities who have not acted to comply with the provisions of ORS 197.758 and this division and completely replaces and pre empts any provisions of that Medium City's development code that conflict with the Model CodcOAR 660-046-0010(4). Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 53 OF 67 Page 53 of 67 AMEND:660-046-0115 RULE SUM MARY:This rule states t he approval processthat medium cities must use to review development applicationsfor middle housing. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0115 Permitted Uses and Approval Process Medium Cities must apply the same approval process to Duplexes as detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. Pursuant to OAR 660-007-0015.OAR 660-008-0015,and ORS 197.307,Medium Cities may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards,conditions,and procedures regulating the development of Duplexes. Nothing in this rule prohibits a Medium City from adopting an alternative approval process for applications and permits for Middle Housing based on approval criteria that are not clear and objective as provided in OAR 660- 007-0015(2).OAR 660-008-0015(2),and ORS 197.307(6). Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 54 OF 67 Page 54 of 67 AMEND:660-046-0120 RULE SUM MARY:This rule describes reasonable siting standardsthat a medium city may adopt to regulate middle housing. CHANGES TO RULE: 660-046-0120 Duplex Siting Standards in Medium Cities The following standards apply to all Duplexes:¶ (1) Minimum Lot or Parcel Size:A Medium City may not require a minimum Lot or Parcel size that is greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size required for a detached single-family dwelling in the same zone.Additionally, Medium Cities shall allow the development of a Duplex on any property zoned to allow detached single-family dwellings,which was legally created prior to the Medium City's current lot size minimum for detached single- family dwellings in the same zone.¶ (2) Density: If a Medium City applies density maximums in a zone,it may not apply those maximums to the development of Duplexes.¶ (3)Setbacks:A Medium City may not require setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single- family dwellings in the same zone.¶ (4) Height:A Medium City may not apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.1T (5) Parking:1T (a)A Medium City may not require more than a total of two off-street parking spaces for a Duplex.¶ (b) Nothing in this section precludes a Medium City from allowing on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking requirements.¶ (6) Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio: Medium Cities are not required to apply lot coverage or floor area ratio standards to new Duplexes.However,if the Medium City chooses to apply lot coverage or floor area ratio standards,it may not establish a cumulative lot coverage or floor area ratio for a Duplex that is less than established for detached single-family dwelling in the same zone.1T (7)A Medium City or other utility service provider that grants clear and objective exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwelling development must allow the granting of the same exceptions to Duplexes. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 55 OF 67 Page 55 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0200 RULE SUM MARY:This rule is intended to measure compliance with ORS 197.758 and Goal 10 Housing for Large Cities. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0200 Purpose of Middle Housing in Large Cities OAR 660-046-0205 through OAR 660-046-0235 are intended to measure compliance with ORS 197.758 et sea and Goal 10 Housing for Large Cities. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 56 OF 67 Page 56 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0205 RULE SUM MARY:This rule describes the requirementsfor middle housing in large cities. CHANGES TO RULE: 660-046-0205 Applicability of Middle Housing in Large Cities (1)A Large City must allow for the development Duplexes in the same manner as reauired by Medium Cities in OAR 660-046-0100 through OAR 660-046-0130.1T (2)A Large City must allow for the development of Triplexes.Ouadplexes.Townhouses.and Cottage Clusters. including those created through conversion of existing detached single-family dwellings.in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings.A Large City may regulate or limit development of these types of Middle Housing on the following types of lands:IT (a)Goal-Protected Lands: Large Cities may regulate Middle Housing other than Duplexes on Goal-Protected Lands as provided in OAR 660-046-0010(31:1[ (b) Infrastructure Constrained Lands: Large Cities may limit the development of Middle Housing other than Duplexes on Infrastructure Constrained Lands:lT (c) Master Planned Communities: Large Cities may regulate or limit the development of Middle Housing other than Duplexes in Master Planned Communities as follows:1T (A) If a Large City has adopted a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan after January 1.2021.it may not limit the development of any Middle Housing type on lands where single-family detached dwellings are also allowed.but may limit overall net residential density within the master plan area provided that net residential density is least 15 dwelling units per acre.A Large City may designate areas within the master plan exclusively for other housing types.such as multi-family residential structures of five units or more or manufactured home parks.A Large City may not limit future conversion or redevelopment of already constructed residential units to any Middle Housing tvpe.IT (B) If a Large City has adopted a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan before January 1.2021.it may limit the development of Middle Housing other than Duplexes provided it authorizes a net residential density of at least eight dwelling units per acre and allows all residential units.at minimum.to be detached single-family dwellings or Duplexes.A local government may only apply this restriction to portions of the area not developed as of January 1.2021.and may not apply this restriction after the initial development of any area of the master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan.11 (d)A Large City must demonstrate that regulations or limitations of Middle Housing other than Duplexes on these types of lands are the result of implementing or complying with an established state or federal law or regulation.11 (3)A Large City mav:1T (a)Allow for the development of Triplexes.Ouadplexes.Townhouses.and Cottage Clusters.including those created through conversion of existing detached single-family dwellings.in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings as provided in OAR 660-046-0205 through OAR 660-046-0235:or1T (b)Apply separate minimum lot size and maximum density provisions than what is provided in OAR 660-046- 0220.provided that Middle Housing other than Duplexes is allowed on the following percentage of Lots and Parcels zoning for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings.excluding lands described in subsection(2):1T (A)Triplexes-Must be allowed on 80%of Lots and Parcels:lT (B)Ouadplexes-Must be allowed on 70%of Lots and Parcels:IT (C)Townhouses-Must be allowed on 60%of Lots and Parcels:lT (D)Cottage Clusters- Must be allowed on 50%of Lots and Parcels.IT (E)A Middle Housing type is"allowed"on a Lot or Parcel when the following criteria are met:1T (i)The Middle Housing type is a permitted use on that Lot or Parcel under the same administrative process as a single-family detached dwelling in the same zone:ll PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 57 OF 67 Page 57 of 67 (ii)The Lot or Parcel has sufficient sauare footage to allow the Middle Housing type within the applicable minimum lot size reauirement:TT (iii) Maximum net or gross density reauirements do not prohibit the development of the Middle Housing type on the subiect Lot or Parcel:andTT (iv)The applicable siting or design standards do not individually or cumulatively cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of that Middle Housing type as provided in OAR 660-046-0210(3)1T (F)A Large City must ensure the eauitable distribution of Middle Housing by allowing at least one Middle Housing type other than Duplexes on 75 percent of all residential lots and parcels within each census block group within a Large Citv.T[ (4) Pursuant to OAR 660-046-0205 through OAR 660-046-0230.the following numerical standards related to Middle Housing types aoplv:TT (a) Duplexes-Local governments may allow more than two dwellings units on a Lot or Parcel.including any accessory dwelling units.Tj (b)Triplexes and Quadolexes- Local governments may allow more than four units on a lot.including any accessory dwelling units.TT (c)Townhouses- Local governments must reauire at least two attached Townhouse units and must allow uo to four attached Townhouse units.A local government may allow five or more attached Townhouse units.TT (d)Cottage Clusters-T( (A) Local governments must allow at least five units in a Cottage Cluster.Nothing in this section precludes a local government from permitting less than five units in a Cottage Cluster.TT (B)A local government must allow uo to eight cottages clustered around a common courtyard.Nothing in this section precludes a local government from permitting greater than eight units clustered around a common courtyard. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 58 OF 67 Page 58 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0210 RULE SUM MARY:This rule outlines the provisions a city may adopt to regulate the siting and design of middle housing in large cities.This rule also includes a description of which standards cause unreasonable cost and delay to the development of middle housing in large cities. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0210 Provisions Applicable to Middle Housing in Large Cities (1) Large Cities may regulate Middle Housing to comply with protective measures.including plans.policies and regulations.as provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3).1T (2) Large Cities may regulate siting and design of Middle Housing.provided that the regulations:IT (a)Are clear and obiective standards.conditions.or procedures consistent with the reauirements of ORS 197.307: and¶ (b) Do not.individually or cumulatively.discourage the development of Middle Housing through unreasonable costs or delay.IT (3)Siting and design standards that do not.individually or cumulatively.discourage the development of Middle Housing through unreasonable cost and delay include only the following:1T (a) Regulations to comply with protective measures adopted Dursuant to statewide land use planning goals provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3):1[ (b) Permitted uses and approval processes provided in OAR 660-046-0215:1i (c)Siting standards provided in OAR 660-046-0220:1T (d) Design standards in Large Cities provided in OAR 660-046-0225:1T (e) Middle Housing Conversions provided in OAR 660-046-0230:1T (f)Alternative siting or design standards provided in OAR 660-046-0235:and1T (g)Any siting and design standards contained in the Model Code referenced in section OAR 660-046-0010(4). Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 59 OF 67 Page 59 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0215 RULE SUM MARY:This rule states t he approval processthat large cities must use to review development applications for middle housing. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0215 Permitted Uses and Approval Process Large Cities must apply the same approval process to Middle Housing as detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. Pursuant to OAR 660-008-0015 and ORS 197.307.Large Cities may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards.conditions.and procedures regulating the development of Middle Housing consistent with the reauirements of ORS 197.307(4).Nothing in this rule prohibits a Large City from adopting an alternative approval process for applications and permits for Middle Housing based on approval criteria that are not clear and obiective as provided in OAR 660-007-0015(2).OAR 660-008-0015(2).and ORS 197.307(6). Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 60 OF 67 Page 60 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0220 RULE SUM MARY:This rule describes reasonable siting standardsthat a large city may adopt to regulate middle housing. CHANGES TO RULE: 660-046-0220 Middle Housing Siting Standards in Large Cities (1) Large Cities must apply standards to Duplexes as provided in OAR 660-046-0120.1T (2)The following siting standards apply to Large Cities' regulation of Triplexes and Ouadolexes:li (a) Minimum Lot or Parcel Size:1T (A) For Triplexes:lT (i) If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is 5.000 sauare feet or less. the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Triplex may be uo to 5.000 sauare feet.li (ii) If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is greater than 5.000 sauare feet.the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Triplex may not be greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a detached single-family dwelling.11 (B) For Quadolexes:1[ (i) If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is 7.000 sauare feet or less. the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a fourplex may be UD to 7.000 sauare feet.Tf (ii) If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is greater than 7.000 sauare feet.the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Quadolex may not be greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a detached single-family dwelling.11 (C)A Large City may apply a lesser minimum Lot or Parcel size in any zoning district for a Triplex or Quadolex than provided in paragraphs A.or BIT (b) Density: If a Large City applies density maximums in a zone.it may not apply those maximums to the development of Quadolex and Triplexes.1T (c)Setbacks:A Large City may not require setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.11 (d) Height:A Large City may not apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single- family dwellings in the same zone.except a maximum height may not be less than 25 feet or two stories.lT (e) Parking:IT (A) For Triplexes.a local government may reauire UD to the following off-street parking spaces:lT (i) For Lots or Parcels of 3.000 sauare feet or less:one space in total:lT (ii) For Lots or Parcels greater than 3.000 sauare feet and less than or eaual to 5.000 sauare feet:two spaces in total:andli (iii) For Lots or Parcels greater than 5.000 sauare feet:three spaces in total.11 (B) For Quadolexes.a local government may reauire UD to the following off-street parking spaces:1T (i) For Lots or Parcels of 3.000 sauare feet or less:one space in total:lT (ii) For Lots or Parcels greater than 3.000 sauare feet and less than or eaual to 5.000 sauare feet:two spaces in total;11 (iii) For Lots or Parcels greater that 5.000 sauare feet and less than or eaual to 7.000 sauare feet:three spaces in total:andli (iv) For Lots or Parcels greater than 7.000 sauare feet:four spaces in total.11 (C)A Large City may allow on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking reauirements.Tf (D)A Large City may allow but may not reauire off-street parking to be provided as a garage or carport.TT (E)A Large City must apply the same off-street parking surfacing.dimensional.landscaping.access.and circulation standards that apply to single-family detached dwellings in the same zone.lj (F)A Large City may not apply additional minimum parking reauirements to Middle Housing created as provided in OAR 660-046-0230.1T PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 61 OF 67 Page 61 of 67 (f) Lot or Parcel Coverage and Floor Area Ratio: Large Cities are not reauired to apply Lot or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio standards to Triplexes or Quadolexes.However.if the Large City chooses to apply Lor or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio standards.it may not establish a cumulative Lot or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio for Triplexes or Quadolexes that is less than established for detached single-family dwelling in the same zone.T[ (3)The following rules apply to Large Cities'regulation of Townhouses:TT (a) Minimum Lot or Parcel Size:A Large City is not reauired to apply a minimum Lot or Parcel size to Townhouses. but if it chooses to.the average minimum Lot or Parcel size may not be greater than 1.500 sauare feet.A Large City may apply separate minimum Lot or Parcel sizes for internal.external.and corner Townhouse Lots or Parcels provided that they average 1.500 sauare feet.1T (b) Minimum Street Frontage:A Large City is not reauired to apply a minimum street frontage standard to Townhouses.but if it chooses to.the minimum street frontage standard must not exceed 20 feet.A Large City may allow frontage on public and private streets or alleys.and shared or common drives. If a Large City allows flag Lots or Parcels.it is not reauired to allow Townhouses on those Lots or Parcels.11 (c) Density: If a Large City applies density maximums in a zone.it must allow four times the maximum density allowed for detached single-family dwellings in the same zone for the development of Townhouses or 25 units per acre.whichever is Iess.TT (d)Setbacks:A Large City may not reauire front.side.or rear setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single-family structures in the same zone and must allow zero-foot side setbacks for Lot or Parcel lines where Townhouse units are attached.Tf (e) Height:A Large City may not apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single- family dwellings in the same zone. If local governments mandate off-street parking.their height standards must allow construction of at least three stories. If local governments do not mandate off-street parking.their height standards must allow construction of at least two stories.TT (f) Parking:TT (A)A Large City may not reauire more than one off-street parking space per Townhouse unit.1T (B) Nothing in this section precludes a Large City from allowing on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking reauirements.1J (C)A Large City must apply the same off-street parking surfacing.dimensional.landscaping.access.and circulation standards that apply to single-family detached dwellings in the same zone.T[ (2) Bulk and Scale:A Large City is not reauired to apply standards to control bulk and scale to new Townhouses. However.if a Large City chooses to regulate scale and bulk.including but not limited to provisions including Lot or Parcel coverage.floor area ratio.and maximum unit size.those standards cannot cumulatively or individually limit the bulk and scale of the cumulative Townhouse project greater than that of a single-family detached dwelling.Tj (h) Minimum Open Space and Landscaping:A Large City is not reauired to regulate minimum open space area and dimensions.but if it chooses to.the minimum open space may not exceed 15%of the minimum Lot or Parcel size. and the minimum smallest dimension may not exceed the Lot or Parcel width or 20 ft.whichever is less.A Large City may establish provisions allowing the provision of open space through shared common areas.Tj (4)The following rules apply to Large Cities'regulation of Cottage Clusters:1T (a) Minimum Lot or Parcel Size:A Large City is not reauired to apply minimum Lot or Parcel size standards to new Cottage Clusters. However.if a Large City chooses to regulate minimum Lot or Parcel size for Cottage Clusters. the following provisions apply:IT (A) If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the same zone for a detached single-family dwelling is 7.000 sauare feet or less.the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Cottage Cluster may be uo to 7.000 sauare feet.1T (B) If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the same zone for a detached single-family dwelling is greater than 7.000 sauare feet.the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Cottage Cluster may not be greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a detached single-family dwelling.TT (b) Minimum Lot or Parcel Width:A Large City is not reauired to apply minimum Lot or Parcel width standards to Cottage Clusters. However.if a Large City chooses to regulate minimum Lot or Parcel width for to Cottage Clusters.it may not reauire a miniminum Lot or Parcel width that is greater than the standard for a single-family PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 62 OF 67 Page 62 of 67 detached dwelling in the same zone.Tj (c) Density:A Large City may not apply density maximums to the development of Cottage Clusters.A Cottage Cluster development must meet a minimum density of at least four units per acre.Tj (d)Setbacks:A Large City may not reauire perimeter setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone.Additionally.perimeter setbacks applicable to single-family dwellings may not be greater than ten feet.IT (e) Height:A large City must allow a Cottage Cluster to be a height of at least one storv.TT (f) Unit Size:A Large City may limit the size of dwellings in a Cottage Cluster.but must apply a maximum building footprint of 900 sauare feet per unit.A Large City may not include detached garages.carports.or accessory structures in the calculation of building footorint.TT Lg) Parking:1T (A)A Large City may not reauire more than one off-street parking space per unit in a Cottage Cluster.T[ (B)A Large City may allow but may not reauire off-street parking to be provided as a garage or carport.T[ (C) Nothing in this section precludes a Large City from allowing on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking reauirements.T[ (h) Lot or Parcel Coverage and Floor Area Ratio:A Large City may not apply Lot or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio standards to Cottage Clusters.Tj (i) Nothing in this division precludes a Large City from allowing Cottage Cluster units on individual Lots or Parcels within the Cottage Cluster development. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 63 OF 67 Page 63 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0225 RULE SUM MARY:This rule describes reasonable design standardsthat a large city may adopt to regulate middle housing. CHANGES TO RULE: 660-046-0225 Middle Housing Design Standards in Large Cities (1)A Large City is not reauired to apply design standards to Middle Housing.However.if a Large City chooses to apply design standards to Middle Housing,it may only apply the following:it (a) Design standards in the Model Code for Large Cities in OAR 660-046-0010(4)(b):1T (b) Design standards that are less restrictive than the Model Code for Large Cities in OAR 660-046-0010(4)(b):11 (c)The same clear and obiective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone. Design standards may not scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units.such as primary entrances.Design standards may scale with form-based attributes. including but not limited to floor area.street-facing faade.height,bulk.and scale:ori[ (d)Alternative design standards as provided in OAR 660-046-0235.1T (2)A Large City may not apply design standards to Middle Housing created as provided in OAR 660-046-0230. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 64 OF 67 Page 64 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0230 RULE SUM MARY:This rule outlines standardsa large city must comply with when converting an existing single family detached structure to middle housing. CHANGES TO RULE: 660-046-0230 Middle Housing Conversions (1)Additions to or conversion of an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing is allowed in Large Cities Dursuant to OAR 660-046-0205(2).provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards.unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large Citv's development code.1J (2) If Middle Housing is being created through the conversion of an existing single-family detached dwelling.a Large City or other utility service provider that grants clear and objective exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwelling development must allow the granting of the same exceptions to Middle Housing.1T (3)A preexisting detached single-family dwelling may remain on a Lot or Parcel with a Cottage Cluster under the following conditions:lT (a)The preexisting single-family dwelling may be nonconforming with respect to the reauirements of this code:lT (b)The preexisting single-family dwelling may be expanded UD to the maximum height.footprint.or unit size reauired by this code:however,a preexisting single-family dwelling that exceed the maximum height.footprint.or unit size of this code may not be expanded:11 (c)The preexisting single-family dwelling shall count as a unit in the Cottage Cluster:1T (d)The floor area of the preexisting single-family dwelling shall not count towards any Cottage Cluster average or Cottage Cluster proiect average or total unit size limits. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 65 OF 67 Page 65 of 67 ADOPT:660-046-0235 RULE SUM MARY:This rule outlines alternative siting and design standards a large city must comply with when regulating middle housing. CHANGESTO RULE: 660-046-0235 Alternative Siting or Design Standards A Large City may adopt siting or design standards not authorized by OAR 660-046-0220 or OAR 660-046-0225 as allowed under subsection(1)or(2)below if the city can demonstrate that it meets the applicable criteria laid out in either subsection(1)or(2) below.Siting or design standards do not include minimum Lot or Parcel size and maximum density reauirements.TT (1) Existing Alternative Siting or Design Standards-A Large City must submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development findings and analysis demonstrating that siting or design standards adopted prior to the adoption of these rules for Middle Housing types not in compliance with the standards provided in OAR 660-046-0220 or OAR 660-046-0225 have resulted in the substantial production of Middle Housing in areas where the standard was applied such that the standards have not,and will not in the future.individually or cumulatively cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of Middle Housing.TT (a)Substantial production means:1T (A)The areas in which the Large City has applied the alternative standard or standards achieved a three percent or greater production rate of the applicable Middle Housing type over the time frame during which the Large City applied the standard or standards.At a minimum.the time frame must include two years of housing production data and housing production data from the full time frame in which the Large City applied the standard or standard.The production rate is the ratio of building permits issued for the applicable Middle Housing type in comparison to the total building permits issued for all Middle Housing and detached single-family dwellings over the same time frame:andTf (B)The areas in which the Large City applied the alternative standard or standards have a sufficient auantitv of remaining sites where the Large City can accommodate Middle Housing to ensure a minimum three percent production rate over a twenty year horizon.The production rate is the ratio of building permits issued for the applicable Middle Housing type in comparison to the total building permits issued for all Middle Housing and detached single-family dwellings over the same time frame:andTT (b) If a Large City applied a design standard or standards that resulted in the substantial production of Middle Housing in a zone where the standard was applied.the Large City may apply that standard or standards in other zones.provided that any standard that scales by dwelling unit scales with the minimum Lot or Parcel size of the zoning district in which it applies.T[ (2) New Alternative Siting or Design Standards-A Large City must submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development findings and analysis demonstrating that the proposed standard or standards will not.individually or cumulatively,cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of Middle Housing.To demonstrate that.the Large City must consider how a standard or standards.individually and cumulatively,affect the following factors in comparison to what is would otherwise be reauired under OAR 660-046-0220 or OAR 660-046-0225:Tr (a)The total time and cost of construction.including design,labor.and materials:Tr (b)The total cost of Iand:TT (c)The availability and acauisition of land.including areas with existing development:Tr (d)The total time and cost of permitting and fees reauired to make land suitable for development:Tr (e)The cumulative livable floor area that can be produced:andTT (f)The proportionality of cumulative time and cost imposed by the proposed standard(s)in relationship to the Dublic need or interest the standard(s)fulfill. Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.758 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 66 OF 67 Page 66 of 67 PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 67 OF 67 Page 67 of 67