Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-24_Ockert_(MH) attached vs. detached From: fanfh-carole(aleurooa.com To: Olson.Erik Cc: randvarthur7(alamail.com;Siegel,Scot Subject: (MH)attached vs.detached Date: Tuesday,August 24,2021 2:10:08 PM Hi Erik, Here are some points I have put together in reviewing the material for tonight's meeting.This relates to the figures in the Key Points#2 memo, Scale and Character Carole httns://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/DocVi ew.asnx?id=l 859299&dbid=0&reno=CitvOfLakeOsweao My key point in this email is: It is about regulating both attachment and detachment,not a simple yes or no to should we allow middle housing to be detached. I think it starts with setting aside the simple question of attached or detached.What matters is good code that promotes in Council's words on page 1 of the memo,"Maintain Consistency with Existing Homes and Neighborhood Character,as appropriate".Lake Oswego City Council direction-not mine.This is what our committee has to reference back to when evaluating these middle housing options. >When we look at examples to get us there-the examples really do need to be place on a lot between two other lots that each have a single family home with driveway on them.That will help those of us less used to diagrams to'get'what the impact and fit is of different middle housing configurations.Those of us not in the biz.just can't see it without the full illustration set. >When we do that,it becomes clear that with single family typical,there is*a front yard, *a back yard,*a driveway up front(unless you are in FAN),*a low use smaller side yard setback and a*similar massing. So now we have some practical context to'consistency'and'neighborhood character'. 5 key elements we can use to tell us when we are following Council's directive. >When I look at the duplex illustrations provided on page 4,I see that each of the examples can all provide those typical 4 elements,with the exception of Figure 8 which does not maintain a normally oriented rear yard and puts traffic down alongside the neighbors expected low use side yard setback.A flag lot by any other name is still a flag lot.And in the city survey flag lots were absolutely not considered desirable. So Figure 8 does not do a good job maintaining the key points.Therefore that should result in the direction from our committee to write code to prevent Figure 8. >Figures 3 through 7 are potentially doable with note that the breezeway connector in Figure 5 does not resemble typical single family and perhaps should be considered to be prevented.It should also be noted that in Figure 7,to maintain that front streetscape consistency,the space between the duplex units needs to be double the side yard setback for the zone.With that in place,we have the look of consistent streetscape unit placement. Figure 9 on the next page,a triplex,is back to another version of the not desired in the survey flag lot with a non front facing dwelling and putting traffic down the side yard setback next to the neighbor.It fails to meet several of the elements,so not a middle housing infill option code should allow. Figure 10,the side by side attached triplex is also not neighborhood consistent,with the three front facing entrances and anywhere else but FAN's rear alleys,would have 3 driveways and garages.This is not even a likely diagram for LO. Same comment for Figure 11.Multiple entrance doors in an attached structure can be designed to be internal,with a single front door to a structure.We have some excellent examples in FAN.Figure 10 and Figure 11,with a single entrance door to look like a single family only work with rear loading garages off a rear alley again as in FAN. So yes,we could have these in R6 with a single visible front door restriction.(Again this is not a simple yes or no,we must be specific in our direction.) Figure 12,a haphazard,carte-blanc approach is definitely not compliant with the Council direction to maintain neighborhood consistency and neighborhood character.It is the cottage cluster concept without a courtyard.HB2001 already gives us fairly specific code for cottage clusters we will have to follow.This anything goes approach to form and lot layout does not belong in dup/tri/quad code. Moving to page 7,we are looking at an R7.5 lot and the illustration is for a quad. Two detached sets of two attached units.The two front facing units divided by a'double setback 15'center driveway'provide a normal streetscape look.The two front units have their own front yards.The attached feature of the two units on either side provide for a normal back yard.This prevents the mass and second story overwhelming the next door neighbor's back yard.It also provides back yards for each of these two units.Every unit has a decent yard.The garages can and should all be accessed off the center driveway,thus hidden from street view as was overwhelmingly preferred in the city survey. >-So this example on page 7 delineates that the two sets of units should be detached to give us a center driveway that: > 1.protects the neighbors experience of their existing single family home >2.hides all four garages from direct street view >3.minimizes the impervious surface >4.minimizes the scale of the middle housing development >-The two sets of units should also be attached in the middle to maintain the backyard both for the residents of the middle housing and the livibality of the adjoining single family lots. >We have here a very good example of neighborhood consistent and neighborhood character compliant middle housing! Code should be written to ensure both the attachment of the two units and detachment between the two sets of units. Again,it is about regulating both attachment and detachment,not a simple yes or no. >If we are building a tri,then we can stay with this same diagram and slightly modify the use.We can have two units on one side of the driveway,and one unit on the other. Still with the same code that directs garages off the center driveway for all units.Or perhaps there is the possibility of having the two smaller street facing units and one large unit at the rear with a garage that is positioned at the end of the now truncated drive and under what would be the second story,an interior hallway running along the back of the garage.This unit would have the now large backyard.With the tri's we get one larger more expensive unit and two lower cost units,again the middle housing opportunity.We can use code to direct this very middle housing friendly,neighborhood friendly fit. >On page 18 we see an example of an attached quad.Though it still provides a front and rear setback per zone,the use of the lane along the neighbor's side yard setback completely upends the normal experience of the low use side yard setback experience and does not fit in with the preexisting single family home's experience.The mass of the building is out of scale with the typical single family massing.Two of the middle housing units do not get direct access to yard space or view potential leaving them of lower quality than we want to provide the residents with.Code should be written to prevent this layout of lot development. >Again I underscore,it truly isn't about yes or no to attached vs. detached.It really needs to be about using code to direct when it must be attached and must be detached.