HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-17_Glazer_MHCAC - Further Consideration for Detached Plexes, Building Width, and Garage Standards From: Stephanie Glazer
To: Olson,Erik
Cc: randvarthur7(caamail.com
Subject: MHCAC-Further Consideration for Detached Plexes,Building Width,and Garage Standards
Date: Friday,September 17,2021 11:30:12 AM
Hi Erik,
I would like to clarify my thinking and provide context for my votes from Meeting 3 (Key Issue 2—
Scale and Character for Dup/Tri/Quad plexes) and Meeting 4 (relating to Townhouse Garage
Standards).
Please see my comments below relating specifically to: (1) the scale and character of dup/tri/quad
plexes, especially if allowing detached units, (2) limits on building width, and (3) garage standards.
(1) Further Considerations if Allowing Detached Plexes:
Based on our discussion in Meeting 3 and further review of shared email comments, I would like to
modify my responses to provide more nuance and context relating to the relationship of detached
versus attached and how the scale and character of each form would be handled.
If detached plexes are not allowed, the existing bulk and massing standards would seem to suffice as
the single unit would likely be of similar scale and form to the single family homes of the
neighborhood. However, if detached plexes are allowed, the nature of these units could be
significantly different from the existing character and would warrant further design standards to
create cohesive integration with existing neighborhood character.
Simply stated, if detached plexes are allowed, I believe that bulk and massing standards should be
adjusted to more tightly control building sizes. If detached plexes are not allowed, I believe that
existing bulk and massing standards can be applied to all housing types.
Along these lines, I am curious how SB 458 would align to and/or affect current zoning designations
for minimum lot size. By allowing detached plexes, it appears that would allow any lot to be
partitioned into 4 parcels, unless otherwise protected. I would like to suggest that the lot
partitioning under SB 458 would only apply to the attached plexes (a required element of HB 2001),
and would not apply to the detached plexes (which are not a required component of HB 2001 and
therefore not necessarily eligible under SB 458).
Another area of overlap, and potential confusion, exists between detached quadplexes and 4-unit
cottage clusters. One way to improve clarity, could be to allow detached dup/tri plexes, but not
detached quadplexes, as detached quadplexes would instead fall under the cottage cluster
standards for characteristics including building size, siting, and orientation.
(2) Further Considerations on Limiting Building Width:
There was great discussion during the meeting around how to best achieve an integrated, cohesive
feel even for larger attached buildings. While design standards and bulk and massing standards will
provide significant guidance on how to develop a well-integrated large-scale unit, I think it is
important to also address the issue of open space and the relationship of buildings with that open
space.
This issue relates not only to the visual impact and sense of place, but also to issues of walkability,
connectivity, and accessibility. On a single parcel,the existing set-backs and bulk& massing and
design standards seem adequate to address issues of integrating into the neighborhood character.
However, when consolidating parcels,the loss of interior set-backs could result in very long
stretches of connected townhouses or other units without a physical break for accessibility and
visual relief. I would like to suggest that when parcels are consolidated,the overall amount of open
space that would have been required as setbacks on the pre-consolidated individual parcels would
be retained as a requirement for the newly consolidated parcel.
When I mentioned this concept briefly in our Sept 15 meeting (after the vote had been completed in
a previous meeting), the question was raised: If this concept were applied, what would be the
benefit of consolidating parcels? I do believe there would still be economies of scale for the overall
project, as well as improved flexibilities for developing the project infrastructure. There could be
flexibility granted in terms of how those required open spaces (from lost interior setbacks) could be
applied. This could be especially helpful to preserve significant trees. I think that requiring these
spaces would better preserve the neighborhood-scale cadence of structure/open space and would
create a more cohesive result.
(3) Garage standards
In Meeting 4, we discussed options for the Townhouse Garage Standards, including a choice
between applying the existing garage standards or applying the Model Code standards for
townhouses. My aim with this vote is to minimize negative visual impacts of prominent front-facing
garages, without negatively impacting parking and accessibility. I voted to apply existing standards;
however, I would only choose this option if the existing single family home garage standard was
tightened to allow a maximum garage width of 50%of front façade, or an even lower threshold (it is
currently set at 60%). This proposed change aligns with the results of the neighborhood character
survey findings that prominent garages are common but are not desired.
There was a comment made by a committee member during the meeting that suggested changes to
the existing single family home garage standard was out of scope, however it is my understanding
from the City and consultants, that such a change to the existing single family home garage standard
is within scope. I would ask for your clarification so that the committee can make a fully informed
recommendation.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Also, I am hoping we will have an opportunity to revisit the committee votes as part of the closeout
process and wrap up in making "official" recommendations to the City, as new details have
continued to emerge on a number of topics during the course of the meetings, but after the close of
initial voting.
Best,
Stephanie
Stephanie Glazer
Email: stephglazer@vmail.com