Loading...
PC Findings APPROVED LU 22-0007 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ) LU 22-0007—2024 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 7 PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH THE MIDDLE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS& ORDER 8 HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF OREGON HOUSE 9 BILL 2001 AND ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2892. 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 13 The City of Lake Oswego is requesting approval of legislative amendments (Ordinance 2892)to the Lake 14 Oswego Community Development Code (CDC)for the purpose of complying with Oregon House Bill 15 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow"middle housing"—including duplexes, triplexes, 16 quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family 17 dwellings. Proposed amendments are to: 18 19 LOC 50.01.006.4 Damage and Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures 20 LOC 50.01.006.5 Nonconforming Lots 21 LOC 50.02.001 Residential Districts 22 Table 50.03.002-1 Residential Districts Use Table 23 LOC 50.03.003.1 Use-Specific Standards for Residential—Permitted Uses 24 LOC 50.03.003.4 Conditional Use Standards for Group and Institutional Housing 25 LOC 50.03.003.5 Standards for Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses 26 Table 50.04.001-1 Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table 27 LOC 50.04.001.1.d Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones 28 LOC 50.04.001.1.e Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones 29 LOC 50.04.001.1.f.i Maximum Lot Coverage Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones 30 LOC 50.04.001.1.g.i Additional Height Standards for Low-Density Residential Zones 31 Table 50.04.001-3 Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table 32 LOC 50.04.001.2.d.iv Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Medium-Density Zones 33 LOC 50.04.001.2.e Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential Medium-Density Zones 34 LOC 50.04.001.2.f.i R-5 Lot Coverage Standards 35 LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards 36 Table 50.04.001-5 R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table 37 LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii(3) R-DD Zone Yard Setback Standards 38 LOC 50.04.001.2.g.i(4) Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone 39 LOC 50.04.001.2.g.iv(2) Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone 40 LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iii Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for Residential High-Density Zones 41 LOC 50.04.001.3.e.v Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential High-Density Zones 42 Table 50.04.001-9 R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table 43 LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii R-DD Lot Coverage Standards 44 LOC 50.04.001.3.d.ii(3) R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions 45 LOC 50.04.001.3.f.iv(1) Additional Height Standards for Residential High-Density Zones 46 Table 50.04.001-11 Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table 47 Figure 50.04.001-11[5] Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots LU 22-0007-2024 Page 1 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Table 50.04.001-12 R-2 Lot Coverage Table 2 Table 50.04.001-13 R-2 Yard Setbacks Table 3 LOC 50.04.004.1 Exemptions from Solar Design Standard 4 LOC 50.05.001.5 Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District Plantings and Buffering 5 LOC 50.05.004.13 Downtown Redevelopment Design District Clear and Objective Standards 6 LOC 50.05.006.4 Old Town Neighborhood Design Overlay District—Required Old Town Style 7 LOC 50.05.006.9 Old Town Neighborhood Design Overlay District—Additional Requirements for 8 Townhouse, Rowhouse, and Multiple-Family Dwellings 9 LOC 50.05.007.3 Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District—Applicability 10 LOC 50.05.010.4.c Density Transfer for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 11 LOC 50.05.010.4.g Mitigation Standards for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 12 LOC 50.05.010.6 Standards Applicable to Resource Protection Districts 13 Table 50.06.001-1 Building Design Standards Applicability Table 14 LOC 50.06.001.2.a Applicability Standards for Structure Design—Residential Zones 15 LOC 50.06.001.3.a.i Roof Design Standards in the R-6 Zone 16 LOC 50.06.001.3.b Front Porch Standards in the R-6 Zone 17 LOC 50.06.001.3.c Alley Surfacing Standards in the R-6 Zone 18 LOC 50.06.001.4 Garage Appearance and Location 19 Table 50.06.002-3 Minimum Off-Street Parking Space Requirements 20 LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi Parking Dimensions 21 LOC 50.06.003.1.d Standards for Access Lanes 22 LOC 50.06.003.2 On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 23 LOC 50.06.003.3 On-Site Circulation—Bikeways, Walkway, and Accessways 24 LOC 50.06.003.4 Street Connectivity 25 LOC 50.06.003.5 Transit System 26 LOC 50.06.004.1.c.iii Site Design—Standards for Installation and Construction 27 LOC 50.06.007.1.b Solar Access 28 LOC 50.07.003.13 Ministerial Development Decisions 29 LOC 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decisions 30 LOC 50.08.002.2 Minor Variance Classifications 31 LOC 50.08.003.2.a R-DD Design Variance Classifications 32 LOC 50.10.003 Definition of Terms 33 34 HEARINGS 35 36 The Planning Commission (Commission) held a public hearing and considered this application at its 37 meeting on April 11, 2022.The following information was presented to the Commission at its hearing 38 and added to the record: 39 G-001 S-Clark, dated 3/9/2022 40 G-002 R-Mullen, dated 3/28/2022 41 G-003 B-Miles, dated 4/10/2022 42 G-004 R-Ervin, dated 4/11/2022 43 G-005 S-Labhard, dated 4/11/2022 44 G-006 C-Miller, dated 4/11/2022 45 G-007 C-Ockert, First Addition Neighbors—Forest Hills, dated 4/11/2022 46 47 LU 22-0007-2024 Page 2 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 2 3 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies: 4 Land Use Planning 5 Policies A-1, A-2,A-3,A-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, C-1, C-3, and C-5 6 7 Community Culture 8 Civic Engagement Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 9 Historic Preservation Policy 3 10 11 Inspiring Spaces and Places 12 Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 13 Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e) 14 15 Complete Neighborhoods& Housing 16 Policies A-2, A-3,A-4, B-1 and C-7 17 18 Connected Community 19 Policies B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-8 and F-2 20 21 Community Health and Public Safety 22 Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10 23 Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies 8 and 9 24 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policies 2 and 3 25 Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policies 2 and 6 26 Sound Quality Policies 1 and 5 27 28 Evergreen Neighborhood Plan 29 Land Use: Residential Goal, Policies 1 and 2 30 31 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan 32 Housing, Land Use, and Neighborhood Character Goals 1 and 2, Policies 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 33 34 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan 35 Land Use Planning Policies 3, 4, and 10 36 Housing Policy 1, 2, 3 and 4 37 38 Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan 39 Housing/Residential Land Use Policies 3 and 4 40 41 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan 42 Housing/Residential Land Use Policies 1, 2, 3, 6 43 44 Old Town Neighborhood Plan 45 Goals 1, 2 3 and 5; Policies 1, 3 and 8 46 47 LU 22-0007-2024 Page 3 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Palisades Neighborhood Plan 2 Land Use Policies 2, 3 and 4 3 4 Waluga Neighborhood Plan 5 Land Use Planning Policy 2 6 Housing Goals 1 and 3, Policy 4 7 8 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code [Chapter 501 9 LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof 10 LOC 50.07.003.3.c Notice of Public Hearing 11 LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body 12 LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions of Approval 13 LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 14 LOC 50.07.003.15 Major Development (excluding subsection d.ii) 15 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial Comp. Plan Map, Zone Map, 16 and CDC Amendments to be processed via Major Developments 17 Procedures) 18 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 19 LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 20 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 21 22 CONCLUSION 23 24 The Planning Commission concludes that the Public Hearing Review Draft of the Code Amendments in 25 Attachment 2 (dated 03/07/21) of proposed Ordinance 2892 are in compliance with all applicable 26 criteria with the exception of Design and Dimensional Standard Item#1 (cottage clusters), and Item#20 27 (front porch standards in the R-6 Zone), discussed below. 28 29 FINDINGS AND REASONS 30 31 The Planning Commission incorporates: Exhibit D-1 (Staff Report dated, 03/07/22, with all exhibits 32 attached thereto), Exhibit D-2 (Supplemental Staff Memo dated 04/01/22, with all exhibits attached 33 thereto), supplemented by the further findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any 34 inconsistency between the supplementary matter herein and the staff reports, the matter herein 35 controls. 36 37 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 38 39 1. Design and Dimensional Standard Item#1- Maximum Number of Cottages per Lot.After the 40 date of the Public Hearing,the Commission received staff advice (based on staff communication 41 from DLCD staff) clarifying that provisions to establish a maximum number of cottages on a lot 42 would be compliant with Division 46 (Exhibit F-2): 43 A maximum number of cottages on a lot is acceptable for a large city to establish 44 through the establishment of a maximum number of cottages per courtyard(at least 45 eight)and maximum number of courtyards per lot. Effectively, this could result in as few 46 as eight cottages and one courtyard per lot... LU 22-0007-2024 Page 4 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 General Item#6 included provisions stipulating that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum 2 of five and a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance 3 requirements. However,the recommended Code Amendments in Attachment 2 (dated 4 03/07/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892 were silent on the number of cottage clusters or 5 common courtyards permitted on each lot. A limitation on the number of cottage clusters on a 6 lot is appropriate to be stated in the Residential Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1), and per 7 staff/DLCD guidance, also in the Design and Dimensional Standards Item #1,which contains use- 8 specific standards for cottage clusters, to limit the number of courtyards (and hence the number 9 of cottage clusters) per lot. 10 11 The Commission has identified that Development (Community Development Code), Policies A- 12 1(b) and A-6 are applicable to this issue: 13 14 Policy A-1: Maintain land use regulations and standards to:... b. Promote compatibility 15 between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; 16 17 Policy A-6:Require that residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake 18 Oswego Urban Services Boundary not exceed the capacity of planned public facilities and 19 services. 20 21 Commission Finding: Compliance with the Land Use Planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan 22 is discussed on pages 18-22 of Exhibit D-1.The Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff 23 Report that all new or modified design standards proposed in the code amendments are 24 intended to ensure middle housing will be as compatible as possible with existing neighborhood 25 character without causing unreasonable cost or delay in developing middle housing.These 26 include dimensional and design standards for cottage clusters intended to maintain consistency 27 with the City's existing sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. 28 29 The Commission finds that adding a maximum restriction of eight cottages, or one cottage 30 cluster, per lot would further ensure that cottage cluster developments are consistent with 31 existing neighborhood character. If the code did not specify a maximum number of cottage 32 clusters per lot, larger lots could potentially contain multiple cottage clusters.As an example, if a 33 larger acreage lot could be able to feasibly fit three cottage clusters, each centered around a 34 separate common courtyard, that could accommodate the development of 15 to 24 cottage 35 dwelling units on a single lot (depending on the size and physical constraints of the site).The 36 Commission finds that developments of this scale require more review than a typical ministerial 37 decision, as the development could begin to resemble a "miniature subdivision" without 38 requiring a land division to be approved through a minor development process. 39 40 The Commission notes that the guidance from DLCD includes language specifying that the City 41 can establish a maximum number of cottages per lot through the indirect mechanism of 42 establishing a maximum number of cottages per courtyard in combination with a maximum 43 number of common courtyards per lot (Exhibit F-2).The Commission finds it is appropriate to 44 implement a maximum number of cottages per lot through the establishment of a maximum 45 number of common courtyards per lot(in combination with the proposed maximum number of 46 eight cottages per cottage cluster).The Commission also finds that for the public's and staff's 47 awareness of the "one cottage cluster with one courtyard" maximum, and thus for proper LU 22-0007-2024 Page 5 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 implementation the DLCD's suggested indirect mechanism,this should also be stated directly in 2 the Residential Use Table. 3 4 The Commission finds that a maximum of one cottage cluster per lot would be most responsive 5 to the Council directive to develop code amendments that comply with the minimum 6 compliance provisions of Division 46 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, 7 neighborhood character, and livability. Based on the direction from DLCD,the City could 8 accomplish such a limitation through a provision that specifies a maximum of one common 9 courtyard per lot. 10 11 Additionally,the Commission finds that establishing a maximum of one cottage cluster per lot 12 allows the City to better promote compatibility between development and existing and desired 13 neighborhood character; Policy A-1 is met. 14 15 The Commission also concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that that the amendments do 16 not permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services 17 within the USB. Policy A-6 is met. 18 19 Accordingly,the Residential Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1) and the use-specific standards for 20 cottage clusters in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.i(1) [Design and Dimensional Standard Item #1] are 21 modified per the Planning Commission Recommended Version of the code amendments in 22 Attachment 2 (dated 05/09/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892. 23 24 2. Design and Dimensional Standard Item#20—R-6 Zone Front Porch Standards [LOC 25 50.06.001.3.b].The Commission received oral testimony from Carole Ockert (Exhibit G-007) on 26 behalf of the First Addition Neighbors—Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN-FH). Ms. 27 Ockert's testimony contended that the proposed code language to modify front porch design 28 standards in the R-6 Zone to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units, as required under 29 Division 46, did not maintain the original intent of those standards to prohibit large obstructions 30 from being located within the required front porch (Exhibit G-007). 31 32 Design and Dimensional Standard Item #20 includes a modification of the existing R-6 Zone 33 requirement that a covered front porch be provided at "the main entry" to a requirement that a 34 covered front porch be provided at "an entry", as it would no longer be possible to identify a 35 "main entry"for a structure with multiple dwellings and multiple entries—such as a duplex or 36 triplex. Ms. Ockert noted that, because the proposed amendment would no longer require a 37 covered front porch at the "main entry", and because it is unlikely that a "main entry"would be 38 obstructed from the street,the proposed amendment could inadvertently incentivize 39 obstructed front porches to be built along a narrow street on corner lots—where a main entry 40 could also be located along a wide avenue frontage. Ms. Ockert showed an example of a single- 41 family dwelling in the R-6 Zone with front porch containing an outdoor fireplace that obstructed 42 the main entry. The testimony did not identify any applicable Comprehensive Plan policy 43 contrary to the proposed amendment. 44 45 Ms. Ockert proposed language to address this concern that would require that front porches in 46 the R-6 Zone be unobstructed on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage, 47 with an exception provided for railings. Code amendment language proposed by FAN-FH also LU 22-0007-2024 Page 6 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 suggested that a maximum railing height be established of, "up to 3 ft. in height... or the State 2 mandated railing height for that project, whichever is higher." 3 4 Commission Finding:The Commission finds that large obstructions located within the front 5 porch can have a detrimental impact on neighborhood character.The existing front porch 6 standards in the R-6 Zone were adopted to maintain First Addition's traditional streetscape by 7 requiring sheltered main entries oriented towards the narrow/ numbered streets.The 8 Commission finds that this intent can be maintained, while still complying with state 9 requirements that design standards not scale by the number of dwelling units, by adding 10 language to the standard that more directly addresses front porch structural elements. 11 12 Though the issue of front porches containing a fireplace or other structural element that 13 obstructs it from view along the narrow street frontages in the R-6 Zone was a concern when 14 the standards were originally adopted,there is no language within the existing front porch 15 standards that explicitly addresses these obstructions. While the cumulative result of the 16 existing standards may indirectly disincentivize obstructions located within the front porch, the 17 Commission finds that the code should instead include language that directly prevents front 18 porch structural elements from obstructing a dwelling's main entrance. 19 20 With respect to the issue of railing height, the Commission notes that there are minimum railing 21 (or"guardrail") heights established in the building code that may conflict with a maximum 22 railing height of 3 feet. For example, railings required under the residential building code are 23 subject to a minimum height of 36 inches; residential structures containing home-based 24 businesses that allow customers to visit are regulated under the commercial building code, 25 where required guardrails are subject to a minimum height of 42 inches.The Commission finds 26 that a maximum railing height should provide builders with some flexibility to design railings 27 without mandating a specific height, and a maximum railing height can be established that is a 28 few inches higher than the minimum 42-inch railing height required for residential structures 29 containing home-based businesses that allow customers to visit. Given that building code 30 standards are subject to change, the Commission finds that this code section should reference 31 the building code itself while establishing the maximum height for railings in the R-6 front porch 32 standards at 44 inches, or the minimum height required under the building code,whichever is 33 greater. 34 35 The Commission finds that the language in LOC 50.06.001.3.b [Design and Dimensional Standard 36 Item#20] shall be modified per Attachment 2 (dated 04/18/21) of proposed Ordinance 2892. 37 38 3. Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis(HNA)and Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI) Findings. 39 In March 2013,the City Council adopted the City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) 40 and Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI).Those documents project the following baseline housing 41 needs through the year 2035: 42 LU 22-0007-2024 Page 7 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 Table 10. Summary of Growth Forecast 2010 2035 2010 -2035 Average Units Annual Estimate Projection Change Change Population 43,094 51,000 8,006 320 City Forecast— 19,166 22,726 3,560 142 Households Metro Forecast — 19,556 23,299 3,743 150 1 Households 2 3 The projected 3,560 new net housing units breaks down by housing type as follows: 4 Table 20. Residential Dwelling Capacity and Projected Housing Demand,Lake Oswego USB,2010 to 2035 Dwelling Unit Capacity and Demand Potential Land Need in by Potential Net Buildable Land Area in Acres Forecast Year 2035 New Dwell lings Needed to Redevel- Meet Pop. Potential Potential opment: Potential Forecast& Dwelling Likely Residential Redevel- Mixed- Dwelling Attain- Unit Residential Land Part opment: Use Unit abiltiy Surplus by Land Need Surplus or Land Use Vacant Vacant R Zones Zones Total Capacity Levels 2035 by 2035 (Deficit)by Classifications (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Acres (dwellings) (dwellings) (dwellings) (acres) 2035(acres) Low Density (primarily large lot 5FD in Ft-7.5, 69.2 502.7 571.9 1,646 783 863 272.1 299.8 R-10,R-15 zones) Medium Density (primarily small 5.5 30.6 1043 140.4 1,017 456 561 62.9 77.5 lot 5FD in R-3, R-5 zones) High Density (primarily MF in 130,R-2,R-2.5, 2.6 5.6 22.8 80.9 111.9 2,400 2,321 79 108.2 3.7 GC,NC/RO, 0C/R3,EC,HC, CR&D,EC/RO, OC zones) Total 77.3 538.9 127.1 80.9 824.2 5,063 3,560 1,503 443.3 380.9 5 6 7 Adoption of the proposed code amendments will simplify the process to obtain permits for 8 medium-density housing types such as triplexes, quadplexes,townhouses, and cottage clusters. 9 Currently,these housing types require a land use application and review process that entails 10 additional time and cost in order to receive permits;this process will no longer be required for 11 middle housing under the proposed ordinance.As compared to larger, multi-family residential 12 developments, which require significant capital investment and specialized financing, the 13 ordinance encourages middle housing types that in some cases can be constructed by residents 14 without specialized development experience or large capital assets, such as the conversion of a 15 single-family dwelling to a duplex.The simplified permitting process proposed in the draft code 16 amendments is expected to incentivize the development of some middle housing that may 17 otherwise not be built. LU 22-0007-2024 Page 8 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 2 As shown in the table above,the HNA projects that, out of the projected 3,560 new net housing 3 units needed, 456 medium-density units were needed within Lake Oswego over the 2010—2035 4 analysis period; based on this figure, approximately 237 new medium-density units were 5 projected to be needed over the next 13 years(by 2035). However, because the actual number 6 of medium-density(small lot single-family, duplex, and townhome) units produced during the 7 preceding 12 years was less than projected, the code amendments could play a small but 8 important role in helping the City attain this needed housing. 9 10 Although the HNA identified surplus land zoned for low-and medium-density dwelling units 11 over the 2010—2035 planning period (with the exception of the R-3 Zone), as noted above,this 12 land was not zoned for middle housing.The proposed code amendments will enable the 13 development of middle housing on lands where they were previously prohibited, which will 14 increase the capacity of lands to accommodate identified housing needs. ORS 197.296(6)(b), as 15 amended by House Bill 2001, allows jurisdictions to assume up to a three percent increase in 16 zoned residential dwelling unit capacity as a result of implementing the bill. Using this 17 assumption, and based on a current estimated dwelling unit capacity of 529 low-density units 18 and 292 medium-density units (13 years or 37%of the forecast'), the proposed code 19 amendments are expected to result in an increase of approximately 42 dwelling units by 2035 in 20 areas currently zoned for low-and medium-density residential use. 21 Finally, given their smaller building footprints and less land-intensive requirements,the middle 22 housing types that will be permitted through this ordinance have a higher likelihood of being 23 constructed on partially developed parcels than larger and denser multi-family developments. 24 25 Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that the amendments continue 26 compliance of the HNA and BLI and that the OAR 660, Division 7 Metropolitan Housing 27 requirements are met. 28 29 4. Minimum Footprint for Cottages in a Cottage Cluster.The Commission received written 30 testimony arguing that the City should set a minimum footprint size for cottages in a cottage 31 cluster in order to ensure that there is sufficient space on the ground floor of a cottage to meet 32 the needs of people with ambulatory limitations(Exhibit G-004 and G-006).The testimony noted 33 that the code currently permits accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with 800 sq. ft. of floor area 34 (not footprint), and suggests that the City establish a minimum footprint of 800 sq.ft. for 35 cottages within a cottage cluster (Exhibit G-004 and G-006). (The proposed code amendments 36 also include a maximum footprint limitation of 900 sq. ft.for cottages within a cottage cluster.) 37 The testimony did not identify any applicable Comprehensive Plan policy. 38 39 Following the date of the Hearing, staff received written confirmation from DLCD staff that the 40 City is not prohibited from applying a minimum footprint standard under Division 46 (Exhibit F- 41 2). State minimum requirements outlined in OAR 660-046-0220(4)(e) also allow cities to 42 establish a minimum floor area for cottages within a cottage cluster. 43 This is an estimate only. The City will be updating its Housing Needs Analysis as required by House Bill 2003 (2019)in the year 2023. LU 22-0007-2024 Page 9 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Commission Finding:The Commission is not required to identify the specific criteria relevant to 2 the testimony of persons if they do not do so and no plan policy or other basis for establishing a 3 minimum footprint size for cottages within a cottage cluster was cited to the Commission. 4 5 If any such policy were applicable, which the Commission has not been cited,the Commission 6 would find that establishing a minimum cottage footprint standard is not an appropriate 7 strategy to ensure that cottages within a cottage cluster are sufficiently accessible to people 8 with ambulatory limitations.The testimony notes that the issue of cottage size was discussed 9 during the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) process, including consideration 10 of accessibility and whether the code should specify that more square footage be located on the 11 ground floor of cottage cluster units when possible (Exhibit F-4). However, footprint is not the 12 same as floor area. Footprint includes all structures with a height of 30 inches above grade or 13 greater, including decks,where floor area is enclosed space.The Commission is not aware of 14 research or evidence identifying the optimal amount of ground-floor living space to ensure 15 accessibility of a dwelling unit, and there are a wide variety of design features to ensure that 16 residential buildings are accessible to people with ambulatory limitations or other distinct 17 needs. (The Commission notes that, while building permit applications for triplexes, quadplexes, 18 and three-to four-unit townhouse structures will be subject to Americans with Disabilities Act 19 (ADA) requirements under the building code, detached cottage cluster units and duplexes will 20 not be subject to ADA requirements.) 21 22 The Commission notes that non-land use measures may be a more effective way for the City to 23 promote the development of units that are accessible to people with disabilities or ambulatory 24 limitations, including financial incentives, as opposed to zoning regulations.This finding is also 25 consistent with the MHCAC's recommendation to provide financial incentives for middle 26 housing projects that meet certain accessibility standards. 27 28 The Commission finds that the code amendments establishing a maximum footprint size of 900 29 sq.ft. for cottages within a cottage cluster(LOC 50.03.003.1.d.i) are appropriate and does not 30 recommend that a minimum footprint regulation be established for cottages within a cottage 31 cluster. 32 33 5. Density and Neighborhood Character.The Commission received written testimony concerning 34 the potential for increased density to detract from existing neighborhood character in Lake 35 Oswego (Exhibits G-001 and G-002). Although the testimony did not cite any Comprehensive 36 Plan policy,the Commission assumes the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies that were 37 intended to be addressed were Development(Community Development Code), Policies A-1(b) 38 and A-6: 39 40 Policy A-1:Maintain land use regulations and standards to:... b. Promote compatibility 41 between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; 42 43 Policy A-6:Require that residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake 44 Oswego Urban Services Boundary not exceed the capacity of planned public facilities and 45 services. 46 47 Commission Finding: Compliance with the Land Use Planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan 48 is discussed on pages 18-22 of Exhibit D-1.The Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff LU 22-0007-2024 Page 10 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Report that all new or modified design standards proposed in the code amendments are 2 intended to ensure middle housing will be as compatible as possible with existing neighborhood 3 character without causing unreasonable cost or delay in developing middle housing. The 4 amendments include enhanced design standards for driveways and garages that will apply to 5 both middle housing and single-family dwellings,to better address the potential increased visual 6 prominence of front-facing garages and driveways that could accompany increased density. 7 They also include dimensional and design standards for a land use not previously allowed, 8 cottage clusters,to maintain consistency with the City's existing sense of place, neighborhood 9 character, and livability. Policy A-1 is met. 10 11 The Commission also concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that that the amendments do 12 not permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services 13 within the USB. Policy A-6 is met. 14 15 6. Tree Removal.The Commission received written testimony regarding the potential for middle 16 housing to increase tree removal and decrease tree canopy coverage (Exhibit G-001).The 17 testimony did not cite any specific criteria or provide any facts. 18 19 Commission Finding:The Commission is not required to identify the specific criteria relevant to 20 the testimony of persons if they do not do so. In this case, based upon Exhibit D-1,the 21 Commission assumes that the testimony is directed to Land Use Planning- Development Review 22 Policy B-10(g) (preserve trees and plant new trees to provide summer cooling), Complete 23 Neighborhoods and Housing Policy A-3 (promote compatibility between different residential 24 densities and other land uses through tree preservation), and Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan 25 Housing/ Residential Land Use Policy 6(d) (ensure new development contributes to the positive 26 design character of the Lake Grove neighborhood through tree preservation). 27 28 Compliance with Land Use Planning- Development Review Policy B-10(g) is discussed on page 29 21 of Exhibit D-1, compliance with Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Policy A-3 is discussed 30 on page 28 of Exhibit D-1, and compliance with Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Housing/ 31 Residential Land Use Policy 6(d) is discussed on page 40 of Exhibit D-1.The Commission concurs 32 with the findings in Exhibit D-1 and finds these policies are met. 33 34 7. Property Values.Written testimony was received regarding the potential for middle housing to 35 decrease property values (Exhibits G-002 and G-005).The testimony did not identify specific 36 criteria or provide any facts. 37 38 Commission Finding:The Commission is not required to identify the specific criteria relevant to 39 the testimony of persons if they do not do so. In this case, based upon Exhibit D-1,the 40 Commission assumes that the testimony is directed to the following policies: 41 42 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan—Housing, Land Use, 43 Neighborhood Character Policy 1: To the maximum extent feasible, single family housing 44 shall be preserved and steps taken to preserve its amenities and value. Special attention 45 should be given to insuring that adjacent higher density housing, if developed, will not 46 adversely affect neighborhood single family development. 47 LU 22-0007-2024 Page 11 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Compliance with First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan—Housing, Land 2 Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 1 is discussed on pages 34-35 of Exhibit D-1.The 3 Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that the proposed amendments 4 permitting middle housing outright in all residential zones may conflict with this First Addition 5 policy as it applies to the neighborhood's R-6 zone, however this policy is applied "to the 6 maximum extent feasible" and state law, including Division 46, is one of the factors determining 7 that "maximum extent feasible." Some single-family dwellings may be replaced with middle 8 housing as property values continue to increase. As allowed by Division 46,the proposed 9 amendments provide siting and design standards, including dimensional, parking, and building 10 design requirements,for middle housing that are consistent with the standards that apply to 11 single-family development, which ensures middle housing will not adversely affect 12 neighborhood single-family development.Therefore, this policy is met. 13 14 Old Town Neighborhood Plan—Residential Land Use Policy 15 3. Generally, and in accordance with the policies of this plan, Old Town shall become 16 higher density land use. However, existing neighborhood character shall be preserved as 17 much as possible. (a):... single family housing shall be preserved and steps taken to 18 preserve its amenities and value. Where higher density land use is developed, special 19 attention should be given to insuring that it will not adversely affect neighboring single- 20 family development. 21 22 Compliance with Old Town Neighborhood Plan—Residential Land Use Policy 3(a) is discussed on 23 pages 40-41 of Exhibit D-1.The policy's preservation of existing neighborhood character is "as 24 much as possible." Similar to the above finding, the possibility of preserving neighborhood 25 character must take into account compliance with state law, including Division 46. The 26 Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that the proposed amendments are 27 not contrary to the above policy. 28 29 ORDER 30 31 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 32 33 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2892, with Attachment 2, dated 34 May 9, 2022 [LU 22-0007] be approved by the City Council (which includes changes outlined in the 35 Supplemental Staff Memo and newly-proposed modifications to R-6 Zone front porch standards 36 and definition of cottage cluster). 37 38 LU 22-0007-2024 Page 12 of 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the City of 2 Lake Oswego. 3 4 DATED this 9th day of May, 2022. 5 6 7 Robert Heape 8 Robert Heape, Chair 9 Planning Commission 10 11 12 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION -April 11, 2022 13 14 AYES: Buchanan, Leek, Phillips, Stewart, Heape, Rigby 15 NOES: None 16 ABSTAIN: None 17 EXCUSED: Pape 18 19 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER- May 9, 2022 20 21 AYES: Buchanan, Leek, Pape, Stewart, Heape, Rigby 22 NOES: None 23 ABSTAIN: None 24 EXCUSED: Phillips LU 22-0007-2024 Page 13 of 13