The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-09-22_MHCACKeyIssue2Pt2Memo-Updated 2021 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee AKF Key Issue #2 Memo, Pt. 2: Scale and Character September 22, 2021 0p1V O ISSUE OREGO� Scale and character of new middle housing The City Council has directed staff to pursue the minimum compliance standards of Division 46, which generally require that cities apply the same or less restrictive dimensional standards (or "siting standards" in terms used in the state rules) to middle housing as apply to single-family housing. This means that the City must meet a set of minimum compliance benchmarks for parking, setbacks, height, setback planes, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and other requirements associated with utilities and public facilities. In terms of design standards, the City must either apply the design standards of the DLCD Model Code or apply the same design standards that the City applies to single-family housing. In Lake Oswego, existing design standards regulate different form-based attributes of buildings, including garage appearance, long wall planes, roof projections, front porch, roof pitch, and other features. Under this direction, the City can regulate design features to ensure that middle housing has a scale and character that is consistent with existing homes or neighborhood character—as long as the same design standards that apply to middle housing also apply to single-family housing.These design standards must scale with form-based attributes of the site or building, not with the number of dwelling units. KEY QUESTIONS & POLLING RESULTS The results of initial polling questions conducted via Zoom at the 4th Meeting of the MHCAC on September 15, 2021, are summarized below: 1. Townhouse design standards for driveways and garages o Poll Question 1: Should the City apply existing standards for single-family dwellings to townhouses, or should the City use Model Code standards developed by DLCD? Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 1 of 14 ■ Option 1: Apply Existing Standards that Apply to Single-Family Houses—7 votes (64%) ■ Option 1, but I am concerned about the negative impacts of wide garages and driveways—3 votes (27%) ■ Option 2: Use DLCD Model Code Standards— 1 vote (9%) ■ Option 2, but I am concerned about the negative impacts if it results in fewer off-street parking spaces—0 votes (0%) 2. Cottage cluster dimensional and design standards o Poll Question 2A: Should the City limit the size of units in a cottage cluster? ■ Yes, limit the size to approximately 1,000 -1,200 square feet—5 votes (45%) ■ Yes, limit the size to approximately 1,200 -1,400 square feet—3 votes (27%) ■ No, allow cottages to be as large as 1,800 square feet—3 votes (27%) o Poll Question 2B: Should the City require additional designs standards for cottage cluster housing, beyond the DLCD Model Code standards? ■ Yes, apply any standards that apply to single-family houses in that zone, so long as it does not conflict with the Model Code—8 votes (73%) ■ No, do not apply any additional design standards to cottage cluster housing beyond those required in the Model Code—3 votes (27%) SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Committee discussion at Meeting#4 related to Key Issue #2: Scale and Character for Townhouses and Cottage Clusters is summarized below. Polling results for question 1 indicated general support for the City to apply existing single- family housing design standards to middle housing, with 64% of committee members expressing support for applying existing design standards that apply to single-family houses to middle housing, and an additional 27% supporting the idea but also expressing concerns about the negative impacts of wide garages and driveways. Committee members expressed concern about challenges that could emerge for those with different accessibility needs if the City were to further limit driveway and garage space. Other members expressed that, while they felt it was important to address concerns related to the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 2 of 14 visual impact of driveways and garages, they were concerned that these limitations could negatively impact the feasibility of developing townhouse units. One member pointed out that, under the DLCD Model Code Standards, driveways may occupy a greater percentage than currently allowed under the development code (60%) on townhouses with small frontages. This individual also stated that the existing 60% limitation could also ultimately force garages to be located in the rear of townhouse developments, thus reducing visual impact of garages even further. Staff reminded Committee members that, while the regulations in the Model Code may be less restrictive for units with a frontage width of less than 20 feet, they would be more restrictive for units with a frontage width of over 20 feet. Polling results for question 2A indicated general support for the City to limit the size of units within a cottage cluster, although there was no clear consensus as to the specific recommended size. Approximately 45% of members supported limiting the size of units in a cottage cluster to between 1,000 and 1,200 sq. ft., and an additional 27% supported limiting the size of units in a cottage cluster to between 1,200 and 1,400 sq. ft. The polling option to not limit the size of cottage clusters, thus allowing units as large as 1,800 sq. ft., received approximately 27% of the votes. Members asked several clarifying questions regarding the Model Code standards for cottage clusters, including questions about the different options available for the City to comply with cottage cluster standards. One member expressed concern that developers would be prone to maximize the square footage of individual cottage units if the City allows for those larger units. Another member expressed concerns related to accessibility, stating a preference for more square footage to be located on the ground floor of cottage cluster units. Polling results for question 2B indicated clear support for the City to require additional design standards for cottage cluster housing, as long as those standards do not conflict with the DLCD Model Code. Approximately 73% of members expressed support for applying any standards that apply to single-family houses in that zone to cottage cluster housing, so long they do not conflict with the Model Code. Approximately 27% of members expressed support for not applying any additional design standards to cottage cluster housing beyond those required in the Model Code. One member expressed support to allow for cottage cluster units to be designed in a more modern architectural style, cautioning that the City should not be overly prescriptive with architectural style or overall design requirements. Another member responded that—even in the R-6 zone in First Addition, which has more complex design standards than other single- family residential zones— modern homes were often constructed within those more restrictive Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 3 of 14 design parameters. One member also brought forth concerns about potential porch requirements conflicting with the accessibility of ground-floor units, with another responding that such front porch requirements would not have to preclude at-grade porches that would allow for "zero-step" entrances. KEY CONSIDERATIONS 1. Townhouse design standards for driveways and garages Definitions' "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." "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 any commonly owned property. All design standards supported in Meeting#3 would also apply to townhouses. This includes elevated garage standards that would also apply to single-family homes, such as limited garage width, requiring recessed garages and requiring design treatments (including elevated garage standards), except that townhouse driveways and /garages must be slightly different because at least one driveway must be allowed for every unit/lot. Under the minimum compliance pathway there are two options for driveway and garage standards, as apply to townhouses detailed below. Option 1: Apply Existing Standards that Apply to Single-Family Under this option, townhouses would be subject to the same driveway and garage standards as currently apply to single-family houses. Some of the most important of these standards are as follows: • Each lot may have at least one driveway. • Max one driveway per 75 feet of lot frontage. 1 OAR 660-046 Exhibit B-Large Cities Middle Housing Model Code Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 4 of 14 • Access must be taken from a local street or non-arterial street, where available. • Front-facing garages cannot exceed 60% of the width of the building facade. These standards were generally intended to apply to single-family houses or duplexes on lots that are at least 40-50 feet wide. HB 2001 rules state that the City may not require townhouse lots to be any wider than 15 feet. If these existing standards are applied to these smaller lots, it would likely result in less spacing between driveways and more prominent garages when viewed from the street compared to typical existing single-family houses in Lake Oswego. Figure 1 provides an illustration of a site plan that could be allowed under these existing standards. Three townhouse lots are proposed on a 120' x 100' site. Each townhouse unit is 30' wide. Each townhouse would be permitted its own individual driveway with a maximum width of 24'. Each townhouse would be permitted a garage that is up to 18' wide (60% of the width of the facade). This would allow for each townhouse to have a two-car garage. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 5 of 14 Figure 1: Example Townhouse Site Plan — Existing Driveway/Garage Standards 120' I I I I I I j I I j I Garage max width=60%of facade Allows two-car garage on facades I 30' M wider tha n 30 feet I I ! 100' r), 7, fp I 18' I 18' I 18' One driveway allowed per lot Max width:24 feet Option 2: Use DLCD Model Code Standards (see attachment A for complete standards) Alternatively, the City could apply the driveway and garage standards of the DLCD Model Code. Compared to the City's existing standards described above, the DLCD Model Code standards would more strictly control the width of driveways and garages. Key elements of the standards include: • If garages face the street, then each garage and the driveway leading to it can be no wider than 12 feet. This means that two-car garages would not be allowed for townhouses. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 6 of 14 • All townhouse projects are allowed to have front-facing garages, so long as it meets the standards above. If these standards cannot be met, then the garages must face to the rear. If the site is on a corner, then access must come from the side street. If the site is not on a corner, than one shared driveway must extend to the rear of the site. Figure 2 provides illustrations from the Model Code of three driveway/garage configurations that could be permitted. If the City were to adopt these standards, the existing standards that apply to single-family houses would not need be modified. Figure 2. DLCD Model Code - Driveway and Parking Standards for Townhouses If not front-loaded and on a corner, side access to rear garages required. SHARED ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY Front-facing garages permitted only under these standards: I - - - - - 7 - - -- - - - - /N/N.7-"U 15 MIN STREET SHARED ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY 61AX 12 r — 7 L . _ - .1_ _ - MAX - _ . J II I I LOCAL STREET I 7\/I Ifnotfront-loaded and not on a i I corner,shared driveway to rear ✓� 7N/�I garages is required: STREET Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 7 of 14 The pros and cons of each option are summarized in the following table. Option Pros Cons Option 1: Apply • More flexibility for larger • Inconsistent with community Existing Standards garages and driveways desire to limit the negative that Apply to • May encourage developers to visual impact of garages Single-Family provide more off-street parking • May result in more impervious surface areas or less front yard landscaping due to wider driveways Option 2: Use DLCD • Limits the visual impact of • Less flexibility for two-car Model Code front-facing garages by limiting garages, which could result in Standards them to 12' wide (one car) developers providing less off- • May encourages side access or street parking shared driveways by not permitting larger front-facing garages • Preserves front yard space for landscaping, trees POLLING QUESTION: Which option do you prefer as it relates to regulating driveways and garages for townhouses? Response Options: 1. Option 1: Apply Existing Standards that Apply to Single-Family Houses 2. Option 1, but I am concerned about the negative impacts of wide garages and driveways. 3. Option 2: Use DLCD Model Code Standards 4. Option 2, but I am concerned about the negative impacts if it results in fewer off-street parking spaces. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 8 of 14 2. Cottage cluster dimensional and design standards Definitions2 "Cottage" means an individual dwelling unit that is part of a cottage cluster. "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." Cottage cluster housing offers an attractive alternative to conventional multifamily development that seems particularly well suited to the village scale and character of many of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods. The benefits of the cottage cluster concept are that it maintains some of the character and privacy of detached housing but allows for smaller and potentially more affordable units. Some developments also cite the communal feel of the site as an attractive feature. Division 46 requires cities to allow at least 8 cottages to be oriented around one common courtyard, so long as the site meets the minimum lot size and other dimensional standards of the zone. Siting Standards: Maximum Unit Size Council has directed staff to pursue the minimum compliance track for implementing HB 2001. Therefore, the City must meet the minimum compliance "siting standards" defined in Division 46. The minimum compliance standards are as follows: • Minimum Lot Size: No greater than 7,000 square feet of the minimum lot size applied to single-family houses in the same zone, whichever is greater. • Minimum Lot Width: No greater than single-family standard. • Maximum Density: May not be applied to cottage clusters. • Minimum Setbacks: No greater than 10 feet • Minimum Separation Between Buildings: No greater than 6 feet. • Maximum Building Footprint: Must limit to less than 900 square feet. Maximum lot coverage may not be applied to cottage clusters. • Maximum Height: No lower than 2 stories. 2 OAR 660-046 Exhibit B-Large Cities Middle Housing Model Code Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 9 of 14 • Off-Street Parking: No higher than one space per unit. Given the direction from Council and the nature of these rules, there is little discretion for the committee to advise on most of these "siting standards". However, the Division 46 rules do allow for the City to limit the overall floor area of each dwelling in a cottage cluster. This standard would apply in addition to the maximum building footprint of 900 square feet noted above. The maximum footprint only limits the size of the first story of a cottage. Limiting the size of cottages may be consistent with broader City goals related to housing affordability. Without a maximum size limit, a cottage could be as large as approximately 1,800 square feet. If size is not limited, developers may maximize the size of each cottage rather than add additional cottages to a site. If the City's goal is to promote smaller units, which are usually more affordable, than limiting unit size may make sense. Additionally, limiting the size of cottages may also be consistent with City goals related to neighborhood character. Smaller cottages may result in sites that appear less intensely developed and more in line with typical single-family lots. Figures 3 and 4 compare a site with more, smaller units (if cottage size is limited) to a site with fewer, larger units (if cottage size is not limited). POLLING QUESTION: Should the City limit the size of units in a cottage cluster? Response Options: 1. Yes, limit the size to approximately 1,000 -1,200 square feet 2. Yes, limit the size to approximately 1,200 -1,400 square feet 3. No, allow cottages to be as large as 1,800 square feet. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 10 of 14 Figure 3: Cottage Cluster with Smaller Units (-1,000 sf) I / III II �� ``ilipp `\\ ill r . I 10 ( \\ , A1141114111%14 .6 10' 100' I I I I 1a Parking Min 1 space per unit Min setback 20'from street May not be located between cottage and street A AIWalkways must connect all units, Setbacks City may not require parking area,and courtyard more than 10' /Ha w10Y- r `-- Building Separation City may not require More than 6' F15'i 1► _ Y. 120' r 1 — Common Courtyard Min width 15' Min area 150 sf per dwelling Max 75%impervious area Min 50%of cottages must orient to courtyard Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 11 of 14 Figure 4: Cottage Cluster with Larger Units ("'1,800 sf) - - .. -- ; , ,, i•-___ 441 0 0 .1.1 i 6.._..__'-- _.I.,._.------eigil pi -,s, I 120' �' 10' 100' °Ill 10' -- Parking Min 1 space per unit Min setback 20'from street May not be located between cottage and street —1111114.1 ---- A Walkways must connect all units, —r _ Building Separation parking area,and courtyard /City may not require / More than 6' I I 100' Setbacks City may not require more than 10' AIL 15'—N- _C 120' I=I —Common Courtyard Min width 15' Min area 150 sf per dwelling Max 75%impervious area Min 50%of cottages must orient to courtyard Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 12 of 14 Design Standards Given Council direction to meet the minimum compliance standards, the City must apply the design standards applicable to cottage clusters in the DLCD Model Code or a less restrictive version of those standards. The Model Code design standards for cottage clusters are thoughtfully prepared and address key issues that distinguish cottage cluster housing. These design standards include: • Common Courtyard: Each cottage cluster must include a landscaped courtyard. The minimum size of the courtyard is 150 square feet per cottage and no less than 15 feet wide. A minimum of 50% of the cottages in the development must have their main entrance face the courtyard and be within 10 feet of the courtyard. • Pedestrian Access: An accessible pedestrian path must connects the main entrance of each cottage to the common courtyard, shared parking area, community buildings and walkways abutting the site. • Parking Design: Parking lots may not be located within 20 feet of the street or between a cottage and the street. Parking must be clustered into smaller lots separated by landscaping and screened from view from the street. • Windows: Cottages within 20 feet of a street must meet any window coverage standards of the base zone. For more detail on the design standards, see Attachment A (Chapter 5, Section C). However, the City may apply some additional design standards to cottage clusters, so long as those same standards apply to single-family houses and they do not conflict with the Model Code. Generally, the following types of design standards can be applied in addition to the Model Code: • Any standards that apply to the design of each cottage house, such as entry orientation, window area, materials and siding, roof pitch, and other design standards that may apply in certain overlay zones or neighborhoods. For example, in the R-6 zone, a minimum roof pitch is required, and each new house must have a porch on the street- facing facade. • Front and side yard setback planes (as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4). Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 13 of 14 • Landscaping standards, except those that apply to common courtyards and screening of parking areas as regulated by the Model Code. Applying any design standards that apply to single-family houses to cottage cluster housing would help ensure continuity with neighborhood character, especially in areas with design overlays. However, these design standards may add cost and complexity to the development process. POLLING QUESTION: Should the City require additional design standards for cottage cluster housing beyond the DLCD Model Code standards? Response Options: 1. Yes, apply any standards that apply to single-family houses in that zone, so long as it does not conflict with the Model Code. 2. No, do not apply any additional design standards to cottage cluster housing beyond those required in the Model Code. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issue#2 Memo, Pt. 1 Page 14 of 14