Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-27_Glazer_Re_ MHCAC - Further Consideration for Detached Plexes, Building Width, and Garage Standards2 From: Steohanie Glazer To: Olson,Erik Cc: randvarthur7Calamail.com Subject: Re: MHCAC-Further Consideration for Detached Plexes,Building Width,and Garage Standards Date: Monday,September 27,2021 9:51:18 PM Attachments: image.pnq Sec 11-Flaa Lots and Partitions-Version 05-9-07.odf Hi Erik, Thank you for sharing your thoughts and responses to my comments. I have added several clarifications in red below. I appreciate your perspective, and look forward to our upcoming meeting. Best, Stephanie Stephanie M. Glazer Mobile: +1 415 505-0793 Email: stephglazer@.gmail.com On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:11 AM Olson, Erik<eolson@ci.oswego.or.us>wrote: Stephanie, Thanks for sending this—we did receive it, but since we distribute Committee member emails on a different schedule than the other memos, etc. it had not yet been posted to the email communications folder. Rest assured that it has been added and will be distributed soon. I've added a few thoughts and responses to your message below in purple. Thanks, Erik Olson Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 tel:503.697.6524 [ y+ • • REGG Stay Connected I Facebook I Twitter I Instaaram I e-uodates From: Stephanie Glazer [mailto:steoh2lazer anemail.com] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 11:29 AM To: Olson, Erik<eolson(@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc: randvarthur7l@arnail.com Subject: MHCAC- Further Consideration for Detached Plexes, Building Width, and Garage Standards 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. Unfortunately, we were able to clarify that this would not be allowed under the state's Division 46 rules—since even detached plexes are considered "middle housing" and must be treated the same as attached plexes. Thus, we would only be able to accomplish this through an "alternative" track where we would need to take extra measures to show that this would not produce unreasonable cost and delay for this type of middle housing construction. Even DLCD thought it'd be possible to prove that additional design standards for detached plexes would not produce such cost/delay, though it may not be possible for the City to do this on the same timeline as the other amendments. Thank you for providing this clarification. If I understand correctly, we could choose to not allow detached plexes, or we could allow detached plexes with the same criteria applied across all middle and single family housing. In that case, my votes would be correlated: if we do not allow detached, I would apply the current standard. If we do allow detached, I would vote to evaluate tightening the dimensional standards for 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). Similar to the above, I wanted to clarify that this would not be allowed under the state's Division 46 rules—since detached plexes must be treated as all other middle housing, according to DLCD. That aside, I am having some difficulty following this line of thought... under SB 458, any lot with attached plexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters may be partitioned into four or more lots through an expedited process. Cottage cluster units in particular will have a detached character and will likely contain more than four units per cottage cluster project. What is your specific concern about partitions for detached plexes? (With respect to your statement above expressing concerns that any lot could be partitioned into four parcels under SB 458—I wanted to note that this would be true for all other middle housing types, regardless of if we allow it for detached plexes.) To clarify my logic, it may come down to the definition of what qualifies for Middle Housing. The SB 458 partitioning applies to HB 2001 Middle Housing, which if we do not allow detached duplexes, would only apply to attached plexes, townhouses, cottage clusters, etc. However, if detached plexes are allowed under the HB 2001 definition, without any size limitation or other defining parameters, it seems that any lot could be partitioned into 4 parcels for any size of house. In other words, by allowing detached plexes under HB 2001, we make the definition of Middle Housing so broad that any house, of any size, could basically qualify.This seems to circumvent the intention for providing the smaller scale, potentially more affordable housing options associated with Middle Housing. Instead, it could simply provide a path for disregarding minimum lot sizes for large-scale high-end houses on one-fourth of the minimum lot size. 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. The City has lot coverage standards that would partially address the "open space" component of your concern, as the percentage of a lot that is allowed to contain structures would still apply to a larger consolidated lot. I understand the concerns about neighborhood character, but I have some questions about the way you're discussing "walkability, connectivity, and accessibility" in the context of this discussion. How would setbacks between, for instance, townhouse units, accomplish these goals?The City does not typically create policy to expand public access to private yards, and even with setbacks there would likely be no public accessways to the yard space. Given that the space is intended for occupants of the townhomes, wouldn't they continue to have access to their yard space through their unit? I think we should be deliberate about increasing accessibility/walkability/connectivity in our communities, but I don't quite understand how those issues would be addressed through providing separation between middle housing units. Thanks for the clarifying question about how this notion of preserving interior set-backs for open space would relate to accessibility/walkability/connectivity. The idea is similar to the proposed code updates to the Lake Oswego Flag Lots document: "Section 11 Flag Lots/Serial Partitions, Version 05/09/07"(attached), which may not be the current version of code for Flag lots, but it provides great logic for forward-looking planning of partitioned lots. While I realize that the original comment was relating to consolidated lots, similar logic can apply, and should apply particularly if the consolidated parcel were then partitioned for individual plexes or townhouses. The objectives outlined in the attached Flag Lot document align with the goal of improved connectivity through guidance on partitioning lots, as follows. "Flag Lot Objectives: The following objectives were used to guide the development of the standards within this section. 1. Create stronger neighborhoods and neighborhood character—Flag lots don't contribute to neighborhood character—they are hidden and pulled away from the street, often with the house facing the back of the parent parcel house. 2. Connectivity—Make flag pole access ways connect so there are directional options and a greater network of streets and pedestrian ways. 3.Tree Protection— Protect trees to the greatest extent practicable. 4. Infill—Allow for infill to occur at planned densities. 5. Coordination— Require coordination among property owners so that connecting lanes are provided. 6. Incremental Development—Allow individual properties to develop independently while contributing to the overall connecting lane concept." The attached Flag Lot document provides specific guidance on creating through-connections, whether all at once or incrementally.The proposed language indicates: "Access lanes shall extend through the development site and connect to abutting developable property to provide a continuous connecting access lane where practicable." I have pasted an image of the "connecting access lane" concept from page 11-14 of the attached PDF. To be clear, I am not suggesting to revise the Flag Lot code, I am seeking to apply similar logic to new lots formed by consolidating and/or partitioning lots as part of Middle Housing development. FLAG LOT Concept: • Develop a "connecting access lane" standard with houses fronting on the lane_ Issue: The purpose of this section is to provide specifications for private connecting access lanes for 2 and blot partitions that are created next to each other. Discussion: Currently, there are no specific standards for a private connecting access lane. The flag lot standard requires that the minimum driveway width be at least 12'. In practice, this becomes a 15'-16'total driveway width in order to provide clearance for fire engine doors to be opened without obstruction. This may be reduced if approved by the Fire Marshal. Current standards allow a 12'wide driveway with 4' shoulders to serve one to three parcels created through a minor partition process. Access for a fourth parcel requires the driveway to be ex.panded to a 20' wide private or public street. Proposal: Access lane width is proposed to be dependent on the number of units served and the likelihood that the lane will ultimately connect with another lane to provide a Through connection. Options are needed to allow a narrow driveway-like connecting lane to serve four or more parcels as illustrated in the diagram below. Concept: Four one-lot partitions providing a common through access lane (12' wide with 4' shoulders). rmH1--1 7.74: As proposed, up#o six lots could take access off of the access lane_ Access by seven or more lots would require development of a public or private street. Flag LatslSerial Partilions Page 11-14 Ver 05/09/07 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. I've clarified at recent meetings that—yes, you're correct that changes to single-family zoning are within scope of the project. Apologies if this was not made clear in the questions and memos. 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. I'm not sure we'll be able to revisit all votes, but we could revisit questions where we've received additional questions/comments/concerns following the vote. Generally speaking, we were thinking that we would use the meeting to clarify important details on previous recommendations —i.e. if we allow detached plexes, should we just allow duplexes? Duplexes and triplexes? Or all plexes?, etc. Let me know if you have any specific questions you'd like to revisit after getting a better sense of how the regulations would function over the course of subsequent meetings. Best, Stephanie Stephanie Glazer Email: stephglazern.gmail.com ' PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Lake Oswego and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule.