The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Item - 2022-02-14 - Number 08.1.1 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation PCWS-4 02/14/22 (PP 19-0008) 02/14/2022 a Nil i ' Ail li ' - • / ', °' i' )44.i - 1 �_ [, (1- *E-N Middle Housing �' Implementation Project GREGo .. Planning Commission Work Session #4 February 14, 2022 / ':"Ik- , N7f Overview ,�. 4 1. Development Review 1, i \ II a. Existing Review Processes 1-i l A lir Al !.1N , Ellen Davis,City of Lake Oswego Planning Department iii,\`= i If i si _ \. • - b. Proposed Amendments for Middle Housing ��1 ' ! i 2. Mitigation and Public Improvements , :_ - i 3. Expedited Review of Land Divisions I/ ` a. Senate Bill 458 . f ��i` -- e b. Process 11 f 4 9ci„ I Of V" r 4,1 9 IK PP 19-0008 1 02/14/2022 Development Review Proposed Amendments to Development Review Process (1 of 2) NIfReview procedures in LOC ":�' „.�r ',' "" ,;•_ � k 50.007.003 must be amended to �� ba ,'4� "' treat middle housing the same as "� . •, _- -' •• single-family housing. .', �11 Mr--M: Mt ti" .- �� 1. il■ ■f um on it of ell or PC direction to develop code i _—__ "I■ 'NE_—_III FIR • lig. 411,4T w. amendments that classify �__— -- --t. individual triplex,quadplex, - - —... ~ ' townhouse projects,and cottage clusters as ministerial �' ��i� �� developments. f..hY ,/ram' �:: - .. ��• f MOM PP 19-0008 2 02/14/2022 Proposed Amendments to Development Review Process (2 of 2) Procedure for single-family and duplex dwelling �:.:_._ :- -_ building permit review must be applied to triplex, quadplex, and cottage cluster buildings. i 7 lirrli" 'I 7 _ F 1 ; xrr EED Triplex,quadplex,or cottage cluster development {,t ;., HI fi, will no longer require the following: ', �� • Pre-Application Conference • Neighborhood meeting • Public notice - ve• J, i1 • Public hearing 11°:1 AMC L MI Townhouse development requires a land division, "--, J nill: which is reviewed as minor development. ' - -Jar _. 1 T • No longer subject to design review approval - Mitigation and Public Improvements PP 19-0008 3 02/14/2022 Current Mitigation and Public Improvement Processes Classification of ministerial vs. minor development impacts the requirements that developers provide public -- improvements and take other measures to mitigate the -• ' impacts of their approved development. • I I _�; : -. City currently reviews single-family or duplex dwellingNIP �' - proposals through a ministerial development process, 'I which does not require a discretionary land use decision. ill . � • Currently no opportunity for the City to require mitigations or offsetting public improvements for ministerial development. • For minor development proposals,the City has the R 1 A ,t-� _ authority to impose"conditions of approval"to further mitigate specific impacts related to the development. . Proposed Clear and Objective Mitigation Standards (1 of 3) To mitigate impacts of additional density from middle housing,staff recommends new clear and objective mitigation requirements be "''F" SIBLEEX+CT/074SA„ER,AL,N CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMVISSIOM • applied to all ministerial development applications. " `'N.elry°''T"="R„ Nancy E.Shawl' tiw.an L,hr./then..UCP. • Will differ from the City's current minor development process, ,,.,,R,,,.rye,,. which requires a gewilf}lgewi( sykltvstsirepx} repwcru. • These mitigation standards will be newly-applicable to single- family dwellings. —•+-„�,. Clear and objective mitigation requirements necessarily will be — prescriptive,such that they apply to the full range of ministerial developments, including single-family dwellings and middle housing. wi�aa.M1'��Lr •w,r.^y..r .11M AM lM W rh • Standards will account for previous mitigation measures that may have been required at a given property to offset the impact of previous development proposals. PP 19-0008 4 02/14/2022 Proposed Clear and Objective Mitigation Standards (2 of 3) Clear and objective mitigation requirements for ministerial development will allow public improvements to be more appropriately-scaled,or"right-sized",to the proposed level of - i development. Mitigation requirements based on `rough proportionality"of 1 +4`/i r' development would then be known to developers prior to ` �- E applying for permits,rather than being defined during the = ' review process. - ,; "Default"development mitigations also presents more certainty '"'' to the public with regards to what types of public improvements to expect for middle housing. • This is beneficial given that ministerial approval processes do not include public comment opportunities. Proposed Clear and Objective Mitigation Standards (3 of 3) Consistent with previous Planning Commission and City • z, Council direction not topursue an infrastructure-based ` _.., r- timeextension request. "" -'^—ma, a, 1t,I - �,; ;0,k , Also consistent with City Engineer guidance to not update i_� �' f L` k_ Citywide infrastructure planning to accommodate middle it - i' i ,I 'f... re ->.' housing density increases, but instead to allow for middle housing development to provide mitigation on an ,r application-by-application basis. . `� �� Alternative path to clear and objective mitigation standards ,, i ; , - to be available through a variance approval. 4 1- a • Allows applicants to undergo a minor development process to determine the appropriate level of mitigation for their proposal. PP 19-0008 5 02/14/2022 Expedited Review of Land Divisions Senate Bill 458 Background (1 of 2) • Adopted by Oregon legislature in May 2021 • Applies to any city or county subject to House Bill 2001 requirements • Allows expedited land divisions for all middle housing types in order for lots for each dwelling unit to be owned and sold individually. o "Parent lot" must comply with applicable middle housing land use regulations o Structures must comply with all relevant building code requirements (i.e. firewalls) o Must provide separate utilities for each resulting middle housing unit/lot o Easements required for utilities, common areas, parking, driveways o Cannot result in more than one dwelling unit per each resulting lot or parcel PP 19-0008 6 02/14/2022 Senate Bill 458 Background (2 of 2) • Allows dwelling units in middle housing developments to be bought and sold individually without requiring condominium approvals • Removes existing barriers to making middle housing units available for ownership o Ownership models such as condominiums typically have additional costs associated with insurance and maintenance, including homeowners associations,as compared to dwellings on individual lots • Cities may not apply additional requirements beyond those allowed in the bill or HB 2001, such as requiring each lot to have driveway access, street frontage, or parking • Cities may require street frontage improvements not otherwise required for single- family detached dwellings • Cities can prohibit further division of the resulting lots or parcels Comparison to Partitions and Subdivisions • Existing partition and subdivision approvals involve an increase in the density permitted on a given lot or parcel o "Partitions"are land divisions creating three or fewer parcels;"Subdivisions"are land divisions creating more than three parcels o Both processes involve a"parent,"or"master"lot and create new,legal"child"lots from the parent lot o Under partitions and subdivisions,resulting"child"lots have full development rights • SB 458 middle housing land divisions, on the other hand,do not involve an increase in the density permitted on a given lot or parcel o A land division {riprs> i igiwwev}to develop middle housing with up to four units on parcels currently zoned for single-family residential use o A"middle housing land division"pursuant to SB 458 would allow only for the creation of new lots within a legal"parent lot",or"master lot",solely for the purposes of expanding ownership opportunities o New lots created through this process would not be granted additional development rights,and must be maintained compliance with the standards applicable to the parent/master lot PP 19-0008 7 02/14/2022 Expedited Land Division Procedure • Enacted in 1995, defined in ORS 197.360 - 197.380 • 21-day completeness review period (instead of 30 days for non-expedited) • Notification required for neighbors within a 100-foot radius (instead of within a 300-foot radius) • 14-day public comment period remains in place • Decisions are made at the staff-level and cannot require a hearing at the Development Review Commission (DRC) • Staff has 63 days to decide whether to approve an application once it has been deemed complete (instead of 120 days) • Appeals not allowed to DRC or Council; appeals must go through a "referee" and the Oregon Court of Appeals (instead of the Land Use Board of Appeals) Development Review of Expedited Land Divisions • Applicants must be given the choice to use the expedited land division track or to "opt out" and instead utilize the typical, non-expedited land division process • Both tracks classified as minor development, which requires: o Pre-Application Conference o Neighborhood Meeting o Mailed notice O 14-day public comment period • City has conditioning authority to require public improvements for both expedited and non-expedited land division applications • New clear and objective mitigation standards will be applied in the review of land divisions,whether expedited or not PP 19-0008 8 02/14/2022 Questions PP 19-0008 9