HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-30_Boone_RE_ Article to share with the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee From: Doone,Evan
To: Olson,Erik
Cc: Siegel.Scot
Subject: RE:Article to share with the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee
Date: Monday,August 30,2021 4:12:12 PM
Attachments: imaae005.ona
imaae007.ona
imaae004.ona
imaae008.ona
imaae009.ona
Erik:
A. Garage History
In the original 1981 Parking Standard(LODS 71.the garage was specifically excluded from the meeting the 2 off-street parking
space requirement.
B. Number of Farkinq__Spaces Required by Type of Land Use
a. RESIn4f2TIAL
i. Single-gamily D11it 2 off-street spaces not
including the garage
Secpndary Dwelling Unit 1 space/unit (in addition
to main dwelling unit)
Further,the standard then(as now)prohibits putting the off-street parking spaces in a required yard.
7.020 Standards far Approval.
1. The dimension and layout of parking spaces and the
number of parking spaces specified for each type of use are the
minimum standards. Up to 50% of the total parking requirement
may be provided in compact car spaces.
2. All required parking shall be off—street.
Parking may not be located in a required yard, except where
permitted in IOC 44.382 and LOC 52.480.
3. Handicapped parking and ramps shall be provided in
accordance with the uniform Building Code.
A"required yard"means the front yard,which means that the parking spaces can't be the portion of the driveway located
within the"front yard." So,I'd say in 1981,it was assumed that people wouldn't use their garages for parking of cars,or at
least that most didn't so to assure that the vehicles didn't park on the street,there were two additional—presumably
uncovered—parking areas on the property. And I would say they had to be not in the"front yard."
In 1998(Res.98-05)the number of parking spaces for SFRs was reduced to 1:
(Note: Although the Resolution used strikeout on the actual LODS text,it did not for the Table. I find no other Amendment of
Table 7.1 in the Resolutions in LF. [I did a Search for"Table 7.1"and when that didn't produce anything,I widened the search
to"LODS,"which turned up a number of resolutions but nothing about Parking.)
RESOLUTION 911-O5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AMENDING LODS CHAPTERS 2, 6, 7, 19 AND 21 TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY
COUNCIL'S DECISION IN DA 4-94-1247 RELATING TO PARKING, ACCESS AND
TRANSPORTATION.
TABLE 7.1
Minimum Off-Street Parking Space Requirements*
Tvoe of Use Parking Spaces Required
(A) Residential
(1) Single-family dwellinff and dualex 1 space per dwelling unit
(2) Secondary dwelling unit 1 space per unit(in addition to 1 space required
for main dwelling unit)
(3) Multi-family Twenty-five percent(25%)of the required
parking for multi-family use shall be located to
provide for common or visitor use.
(i) Studio/Efficiency 1 space per unit
(ii) 1 Bedroom 1.25 spaces per unit
(iii) 2 or more Bedrooms 115 spaces per unit
i41 Rooming and boarding house: 1 space nee each uest room Plus one for
Bed and Breakfast owner.
(B) Commercial Residential
DA 4-97 was the mammoth revision per the Transportation Planning Rule. (There are 4 pdfs,not searchable). Oddly,although
Exhibit D was the old LODS provisions(which had the 2 parking spaces required,not in the garage"provision-PG.169 of PDF
#1),and the new provisions required 1 parking spaces and the exclusion of the garage for off-street parking was not continued
forward,there is neither a strikeout to indicate the change(the"1"is bolded,as a new addition),nor any discussion of the
change in number or allowing the garage to be counted in the Staff or Council Reports.
B. Requirement to Park in the Garage..or really"No Storage in the Garage".
I spoke with Barbara Jacobson,Wilsonville City Attorney. Their"garage parking required/no storage in garage"provision was
in their development approval for a subdivision that was extremely dense with small alleys(Villabois),so the developer was
supportive of the requirement.
r , a New,Wilsonville 7% •
.5kaarktep , ,~
elerrno St i r — . . S.
•i.'. _ I, —6-• - - a -__ $47,.. '4, •'N.'./. ! :,... '15.31. . . 1. • 0146
Edelweiss Parl'1P. . ' a '''
ri
�-
ii * urk' rtagePa .. -- f . ,
Colombia Gleaninii,g:, ► •U�14 5 . " '
Services,LLC.r a
\ Alterations by Anna i.! a. r
• r_ -
- �•. r SWCaTi
44
, Royal'Scot Sips&Eats't �� • •,
•
The Charleston ■ GIf"o`is V1118geent=r u �•�
., +` Apartments . -. .-._...,_.-.
:.._ S Best Portland Cleaners`" :,. r
Piccadilly Park -• z s \.se., { .em s;
it VIllehois Community o� Pd.p, �od�" •• -gw;mossin .. Lowrie Primary,Sah75
Center and Pool �' t -
r $di'SS M will:Lnnp if - r
1 i a ti
' Renaissance Court . ,w s
Sofia Park 5v t. y i _ _• �19,
lks:' . . h ....
N. L o`,.4.. ^..!;" p si . .-•-•1:' - -' / '1
i4. ; .
.�••k. tea ' S- .� +3. _ -' T �••
C� St
F * �t 3 gss o-�
Palero Park Whitaker Park _ N
r4 •� a/ �
•• c'GraCeE, - . r' J r `� . . . ti ,
l •`""fir r z Camell:4.El }
f«,r
ttei 'AMP. We
Th•Vd.Om NM
oilkH
•
•
They required the developer to include the provision in the CCRs,so the HOA could enforce,and the City could enforce as
violation by the owner of a condition of approval. Wilsonville has had one enforcement action where they asked the owner to
open their garage doors,he voluntarily consented,it was being used for storage,and they cited the property owner.
They haven't imposed the condition on an unwilling"single-lot"infill developer;the Villabois developer recognized the need
for"no storage in the garage"as an amenity to preserve the character of the area. In other words,they had(or weren't
challenged by the consenting developer)special findings that the design(small house,dense development,small alleys)
proposed resulted in the necessity to make sure people could use their garages for parking.
Where we are going to have single-lot/"infill"middle housing,(1)we would need to make a finding that the design of the
middle housing was creating the need for"no storage in garage/no parking on the street"under our Conditioning Authority
(LOC 50.07.003.5),(2)the"HOAs"would be small and would not have the Wilsonville-incentive to enforce the"no storage in
garage/no parking on the street"CCRs,so it would be the City enforcing the HOAs to enforce the condition,ala Leslie Lane
and Bryant Woods.(3)it would be an easier proof if we prohibited storage in the garage,rather than requiring parking in the
street except when the garage already has its two cars in the garage,i.e.,before issuing a citation one would have to know that
there are not already cars parked in the garage,example 3-car family with a two car garage would be able to park one car on
the street assuming the other two cars are in the garage when the car was parked.
And then there is the nagging feeling that someone would argue that a"no storage in the garage"standard(and conditions)
applied only to middle housing could raise the HB 2001 prohibit of"do not,individually or cumulatively,discourage the
development of all middle housing types permitted in the area through unreasonable costs or delay." Personally, I don't see a
requirement to prohibit storage in the garage in order to facilitate parking in the garage as imposing an"unreasonable cost"
per HB 2001 on middle housing(as compared to SFR in the same neighborhood that would not have that requirement)but I
suspect someone would try.
Conclusion:
Wilsonville is not an example of infill middle housing were a"garage parking required/no storages in garage"provision has
been applied. The motivation of the developer or"HOA"or an infill small middle housing development to enforce the
provision is lacking,so I suspect that we would see City enforcement against the HOA,or as Wilsonville did in the one case,
direct City enforcement,which is why I think the"garage parking required/no storage in garage"part of the provision would
be easier to enforce than trying to track who is parking on-street and whether their garage has cars in it. But obviously getting
an administrative warrant—and enforcement of such—would be a challenge that really only the City can take on if the HOA or
a complaining neighbor brought the suspected violation to the City.
Thanks,
Evan Boone
Deputy City Attorney
503-635-0225/Extension 8552
From:Olson,Erik
Sent:Monday,August 30,2021 11:15 AM
To:Boone,Evan<eboone@ci.oswego.or.us>
Cc:Siegel,Scot<ssiegel@ci.oswego.or.us>
Subject:FW:Article to share with the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee
Hi Evan,
See the message below from Planning Commissioner Helen Leek,who also serves on the Middle Housing Code Advisory
Committee.
Could you weigh in on whether such an approach(requiring that garages be used for parking)would be feasible in Lake
Oswego?I was interested to see that Wilsonville is contemplating delegating the authority of enforcement to HOAs,and was
confused about how that arrangement would theoretically work in LO as well.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Erik Olson
Senior Planner
City of Lake Oswego
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
tel:503.697.6524
oia .6\:.
CI! Gp '
Stay Connected I Facebook I Twitter I Instaaram I e-updates
From:helenleek01eemail.com Finailto:helenleek0l@gmail.coml
Sent:Thursday,August 26,2021 8:15 PM
To:Olson, Erik<eolson c(il. ci.osweeo.or.us>
Subject:Article to share with the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee
Dear Eric,
A we work through the conversation on Middle Housing it seems we are working in a vacuum,
with little feedback as to what other municipalities are doing/discussing. I know we are crafting a
"Lake Oswego Way,"but other cities are grappling with the same issues we are. It would be nice to
know what our neighbors are doing.
Parking is a big one for me, and I was going to suggest we write into our codes that since we are
only allowed to mandate one parking space per unit, and if the definition of a parking space is a
garage, then we need to mandate that the garage is used for parking ONLY not storage.
As a Realtor for decades, and a neighbor to homes that have three car garages,there are
homeowners who have a triple car garage and still park their cars in the driveway for lack of garage
space. With middle housing, there will not be room for driveway parking in many instances, so
actually utilizing the garage as a parking space for cars is imperative.
There are condominium associations in the area that mandate the garage be used ONLY for parking,
not storage. I can provide info on that if you would like.
This is the discussion Wilsonville is having on the topic. Please see: Wilsonville tries to quell
middle housing parking concerns
Can you provide this article to the other members of the committee,please?
Kindest regards,
Helen
You only live once,
but if you do it right,
once is enough. Mae West
From:helenleek010email.com<sunaort( aa.olivesoftware.com>
Sent:Thursday,August 26,2021 8:03 PM
To:helenleek010email.com
Subject:helenleek01(@email.com