Loading...
Council Report 05-04-22 CCPH 5-17-22 w-Exh LU 22-0007 0-Pt 0s COUNCIL REPORT 0442, OREOOt.4 Subject: Ordinance 2892, Middle Housing (House Bill 2001) Code Amendments- LU 22-0007 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Erik Olson, Senior Planner Report Date: May 5, 2022 Department: Community Development Department Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑X Planning Commission Recommends Approval ❑X Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑X Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 2892 to amend the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50) Recommended Language for Motion: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2892 and direct staff to return on June 7, 2022 with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 22-0007. Project/ Issue Relates To: Code amendments to comply with the middle housing requirements of House Bill 2001. ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑X Comprehensive Plan ❑Not Applicable Adopt code that complies with HB 2001 requirements ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL The Council will hold a legislative public hearing for LU 22-0007, the proposed code amendments to comply with the middle housing requirements of Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are part of the City Council goal to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change", and the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability." The amendments were prepared in 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 response to state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing"—including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family dwellings. The amendments are intended to enact these and other changes necessary to meet the minimum compliance provisions outlined in the administrative rules for middle housing contained within Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (Division 46). BACKGROUND The Planning Commission developed recommendations for the proposed amendments (Ordinance 2892) in four work sessions on December 13, 2021, January 10, 2022, January 24, 2022, and February 15, 2022, and the Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on April 11, 2022. The Commission recommends approval of Ordinance 2892 as reflected in the Findings, Conclusion, and Order adopted on May 9, 2022 (Exhibit B-1). The proposed code text is contained in Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2892 (Exhibit A-1.1), dated May 9, 2022. DISCUSSION The amendments will clarify and update various provisions listed below. GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add middle housing development in the purpose statements located within the following sections: 1. R-7.5, R-10, R-15 (Residential High Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.a 2. R-5, R-6, R-DD (Residential Medium Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.b 3. R-0, [R-2], R-3, R-W (Residential High-Density) Zones. LOC 50.02.001.c 2. Allow for the development of middle housing types in applicable Table 50.03.002-1 residential districts within the Residential Districts Use Table, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify that LOC 50.03.003.4.i(3) the conditional use standards for group and institutional housing will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 4. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify that LOC 50.03.003.5.h.i the use-specific standards for public, institutional, and civic uses will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 5. Add a definition of"cottage cluster", to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 6. Specify that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of five and LOC 50.10.003.2 a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 7. Add a definition for "common courtyard" for cottage cluster LOC 50.10.003.2 developments. 8. Modify the definition of"duplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. (Maintains existing requirement that duplexes are two attached dwellings.) 9. Remove the existing definition of "dwelling, attached townhouse" and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table Table 50.03.002-1 2. Definition of Terms LOC 50.10.003.2 10. Add a definition for "dwelling, cottage cluster". LOC 50.10.003.2 11. Revise the definition of"dwelling, multi-family" to be for LOC 50.10.003.2 developments of five or more attached dwelling units on a lot, to distinguish from middle housing. 12. Remove the existing definition and other code references to "dwelling, zero lot line", and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions, within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; Table 50.03.002-1 2. Ministerial Development Classification; LOC 50.07.003.13.a 3. Definition of Terms. LOC 50.10.003.2 13. Add a definition for "cottage cluster dwelling footprint" to align LOC 50.10.003.2 with state minimum compliance requirements. 14. Add a definition for "middle housing" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. 15. Add a definition for "quadplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 16. Add a new definition of "townhouse" to replace existing LOC 50.10.003.2 definition of "attached townhome dwelling", in alignment with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Add a definition for "townhouse project" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements, and to allow townhouse standards to be applied to the entire site prior to a land division. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 18. Add a definition for "triplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 19. Modify minor variance standards to apply to single-family LOC 50.08.002.2.a; residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state 50.08.002.2.b; minimum compliance requirements. 50.08.002.2.d; 50.08.002.2.g 20. Modify design variance standards in the R-DD Zone to apply to LOC 50.08.003.2.a single-family residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add or reference design standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; and Table 50.03.002-1 2. Use-specific standards for cottage clusters. LOC 50.03.003.1.d 2. Exempt duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot, for lots that comply with minimum lot area standards for townhouse projects, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 3. Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the following sections. to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 4. Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension standards that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the following sections, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low Density Zones- Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.1.b 2. R-5 Zone - Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.2.b.i 3. Residential High-Density Zones— Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.3.b 4. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 5. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 6. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 5. Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Height Standards for Low-Density Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.g.i Zones; 3. Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.i(4) 4. Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.iv(2) 5. Additional Height Standards for Residential High-Density LOC 50.04.001.3.f.iv(1) Zones. 6. Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types to align with state minimum compliance requirements within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. R-5 Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.i(1) 3. R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table; Table 50.04.001-5 4. R-DD Zone Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii(3) 5. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-11 6. R-2 Yard Setbacks Table. Table 50.04.001-13 7. Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 8. Add maximum average floor area standards for individual units within a cottage cluster as follows: 1. 1,200 square feet per unit in the R-10 and R-15 Zones; LOC 50.04.001.1.d 2. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-7.5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.1.d 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 6 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 3. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-6, R-5 and R-DD Zones; LOC 50.04.001.2.d.iv 4. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-0, R-2 and R-3 Zones. LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iii 9. Add building separation standards for cottage clusters, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.e Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Medium-Density Zones; and 3. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential High- LOC 50.04.001.3.e.v Density Zones. 10. Apply maximum floor area standards for townhouses to the entire site as allowed by state middle housing requirements, rather than individual townhouse lots, by referencing the term "townhouse project" within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.d Density Districts; 3. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 4. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 5. Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iv Residential High-Density Zones. 11. Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.e.iii Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Medium-Density Zones; 3. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential High- LOC 50.04.001.3.e.iv Density Zones. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 7 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 12. Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects, and exempt cottage clusters from maximum lot coverage standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in the following sections: 1. Maximum Lot Coverage standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.f.i Density Zones; 2. R-5 Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.i 3. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii 4. R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table; Table 50.04.001-9 5. R-DD Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(4) 6. R-2 Lot Coverage Table; and Table 50.04.001-12 7. R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions. LOC 50.04.001.3.d.ii(3); 50.04.001.3.d.ii(4) 13. Clarify maximum impervious surface standards for duplexes, LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(2) triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects in the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 14. Clarify which maximum impervious surface standards apply to LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(3) cottage clusters by cross-referencing the use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 15. Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft. to 25 ft. within the following sections to comply with state minimum requirements: 1. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 2. Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots figure. Figure 50.04.001-11[5] 16. Eliminate references to single-family zones in the solar LOC 50.04.004.b adjustments standards related to off-site shade, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; and Table 50.06.001-1; 2. Applicability standards for Structure Design — Residential LOC 50.06.001.2.a.i Zones. 18. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single- LOC 50.06.001.2.a family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. (Building design standards would apply to portions of dwellings that are expanded or additions.) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 8 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 19. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Roof Design standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.3.a.i 2. On-Site Circulation — Bikeways, Walkway, and Accessways; LOC 50.06.003.3.a 3. Street Connectivity; LOC 50.06.003.4.a.iii 4. Transit System; LOC 50.06.003.5.a 5. Site Design - Standards for Installation and Construction; LOC 50.06.004.1.c.iii 6. Solar Access; LOC 50.06.007.1.b 7. Definition of Floor Area. LOC 50.10.003.2 20. Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not scale LOC 50.06.001.3.b by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 21. Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply LOC 50.06.001.3.c equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 22. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in applicable zones: 1. Garage appearance and location standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.i 2. Driveway width limitations; LOC 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(a); 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(b) 3. Driveway grade standards. LOC 50.06.003.2.b.iii(1); 50.06.003.2.b.iii(3) 23. Modify the following garage standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade: 1. Garage setback standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(1) 2. Garage width standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(2) 3. Garage appearance standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(3) 4. Garage window standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii 5. Garage location standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.ii(2) 6. Garage window standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iii 7. Garage setback standards in the R-6 Zone; and LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iv 8. Garage appearance standards in the R-6 Zone. LOC 50.06.001.4.b.v 24. Apply garage appearance and location standards to parcels of less LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii than 50 feet in width. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 9 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 25. Modify general off-street parking requirements to permit one Table 50.06.002-3 space per unit for middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 26. Modify parking dimension standards to apply equally to single- LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi(2) family and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 27. Specify that on-lane parking spaces located on an access lane LOC 50.06.003.1.d.iii may be used to meet minimum parking requirements for middle housing on flag lots served by the access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 28. Limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width to LOC 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(d) no wider than the associated garage opening. 29. Apply the exception from the hard pavement requirement for LOC 50.06.003.2.c.vi(2) driveways equally to duplexes and single-family residences, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 30. Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code, and remove the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Standards for Access Lanes; and LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii 2. Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires LOC 50.06.003.4.c.v the Construction of a Street. 31. Specify that duplexes may be permitted on flag lots served by an LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii access lane, but not other middle housing types, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 32. Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached LOC 50.03.003.1.e townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use- Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section. 33. Clarify that the garage wall facing street standard does not apply LOC 50.06.001.4.a.ii to garage walls containing the garage opening, as these are now addressed within the new garage appearance and location standards. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 10 OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapter 50.05) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Exempt middle housing created through conversions or additions LOC 50.05.001.5a.ii to a single-family dwelling in the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay from the requirement to submit a Plantings and Buffering plan, in order to treat single-family and middle housing equally, as required for state minimum compliance. 2. Clarify that the Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) District LOC 50.05.004.13.b Clear and Objective Standards may be applied equally to any new dwelling—including detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that the following design standards within the Old Town LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(f)(iii) Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District apply equally to LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(b) 1. Window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; 2. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(f)(ii) 3. Massing/Composition standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(a) 4. Window standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(b) 5. Building Height standards for the Craftsman Style; 6. Massing/Composition standards for the Craftsman Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 7. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style; and LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(j) 8. Required design elements for the Craftsman Style. 4. Modify the following standards within the Old Town Overlay to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) and 2. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style. LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 5. Clarify that the design standards specific to multi-family LOC 50.05.006.9; dwellings in the Old Town Overlay are not applicable to middle 50.05.006.9.a; housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.05.006.9.b; 6. Clarify that design standards apply to both detached single-family LOC 50.05.007.3.c.i(1); and middle housing dwellings equally in the Lake Grove Village 50.05.007.3.c.ii(5) Center Overlay (LGVCO). 7. Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to detached single- LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6) family dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO, as required for state minimum compliance. 8. Limit the applicability of density transfer provisions in the LOC 50.05.010.4.c.iii Sensitive Lands Overlay to single-family dwellings and duplexes. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 11 9. Modify the bonding period standards for the Sensitive Lands LOC 50.05.010.4.g.ix(4) Overlay District to apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. 10. Allow for duplex development within the Resource Protection LOC 50.05.010.6.a.iii (RP) District, but not other middle housing types. 11. Allow for duplex development on sites otherwise encumbered LOC 50.05.010.6.d.i by an RP District, but not other middle housing types. REVIEW PROCEDURE CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.06 & 50.07) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: Table 50.06.001-1; 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(1); 2. Ministerial Development Classification; and 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3); 3. Review Criteria for Ministerial Development. LOC 50.07.003.13.e.ii(8) 2. Clarify that duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (middle housing) where allowed in the following districts are not classified as ministerial development: 1. Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use Districts; and LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(h) 2. Special Purpose Districts. LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(g) 3. Clarify that minor development procedures will apply equally to LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(a); single-family residences and middle housing in the R-DD Zone, to 50.07.003.14.a.ii(2); align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.07.003.14.a.ii(5); 4. Clarify that conversions from detached single-family to middle LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(b) housing are classified as ministerial development in the R-DD Zone, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.05, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that provisions related to the damage and reconstruction LOC 50.01.006.4 of nonconforming structures also apply to middle housing. 2. Revise provisions for nonconforming lots to allow for duplex LOC 50.01.006.5.a construction, but not to allow the construction of other middle housing types, on nonconforming lots, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that, for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards may 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 12 apply only to the newly-added portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted, within the following sections: 1. LGVCO Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(7) Site Improvements standards; and 2. Residential Zones Structure Design Applicability LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iv standards. 4. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single- LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. The testimony before the Commission focused on a now-modified portion of Design and Dimensional Standard Item #20, to modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: The Commission received oral testimony from Carole Ockert (Exhibit G-007) on behalf of the First Addition Neighbors— Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN-FH). Ms. Ockert's testimony contended that the proposed code language to modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units did not maintain the original intent of those standards to prohibit large obstructions from being located within the required front porch (Exhibit G-007). Ms. Ockert proposed language to address this concern that would require that front porches in the R-6 Zone be unobstructed on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage, with an exception provided for railings. Code amendment language proposed by FAN-FH also suggested that a maximum railing height be established of, "up to 3 ft. in height... or the State mandated railing height for that project, whichever is higher." The Commission found that large obstructions located within the front porch can have a detrimental impact on neighborhood character. The existing front porch standards in the R-6 Zone were adopted to maintain First Addition's traditional streetscape by requiring sheltered main entries oriented towards the narrow/ numbered streets. The Commission found that this intent can be maintained, while still complying with state requirements that design standards not scale by the number of dwelling units, by adding language to the standard that more directly addresses front porch structural elements. With respect to the issue of railing height, the Commission noted that there are minimum railing (or "guardrail") heights established in the building code that may conflict with a maximum railing height of 3 feet. For example, railings required under the residential building code are subject to a minimum height of 36 inches; residential structures containing home-based businesses that allow customers to visit are regulated under the commercial building code, where required guardrails are subject to a minimum height of 42 inches. The Commission found that a maximum railing height should provide builders with some flexibility to design railings without mandating a specific height, and a maximum 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 13 railing height can be established that is a few inches higher than the minimum 42-inch railing height required for residential structures containing home-based businesses that allow customers to visit. Given that building code standards are subject to change, the Commission concluded that this code section should reference the building code itself while establishing the maximum height for railings in the R-6 front porch standards at 44 inches, or the minimum height required under the building code, whichever is greater. Additionally, staff received clarification from DLCD following the date of the Public Hearing regarding the maximum number of cottages that can be required in a cottage cluster (General Item #6). This prompted the Commission to direct staff to add language to the code amendments that establishes a maximum number of cottage clusters per lot: The Commission received communication from DLCD staff clarifying that provisions to establish a maximum number of cottages on a lot would be compliant with Division 46 (Exhibit F-2): A maximum number of cottages on a lot is acceptable for a large city to establish through the establishment of a maximum number of cottages per courtyard(at least eight) and maximum number of courtyards per lot. Effectively, this could result in as few as eight cottages and one courtyard per lot... General Item #6 included provisions stipulating that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of five and a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. City Council directed staff to set the minimum number of units for a cottage cluster at five as a means of differentiating requirements for cottage clusters from other forms of detached middle housing, which is consistent with previous Council direction to not permit detached quadplexes and avoids confusion with any potential future allowances of detached quadplexes. However, the recommended Code Amendments in Attachment 2 (dated 03/07/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892 were silent on the number of cottage clusters or common courtyards permitted on each lot. The Commission found that establishing a maximum number of cottage clusters per lot would encourage cottage cluster developments that are more consistent with existing neighborhood character. If the code continued not to specify a maximum number of cottage clusters per lot, larger lots could potentially contain multiple cottage cluster developments. As an example, certain lots could be able to feasibly "fit" up to three cottage clusters, each centered around a separate common courtyard, which could accommodate the development of 15 to 24 cottage dwelling units on a single lot (depending on the size and physical constraints of the site). The Commission finds that developments of this scale require more review than a typical ministerial decision, as the development could begin to resemble a "miniature subdivision" without requiring a land division to be approved through a minor development process. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 14 The Commission concluded that a maximum of one cottage cluster per lot would be most responsive to the Council directive to develop code amendments that both comply with Division 46 and are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. The Commission noted that the guidance from DLCD includes language specifying that the City can establish a maximum number of cottages per lot through the indirect mechanism of establishing a maximum number of cottages per courtyard in combination with a maximum number of common courtyards per lot (Exhibit F-2). The Commission found that it is appropriate to implement a maximum number of cottages per lot through the establishment of a maximum number of common courtyards per lot (in combination with the proposed maximum number of eight cottages per cottage cluster). The Commission also found that for the public's and staff's awareness of the "one cottage cluster with one courtyard" maximum, and thus for proper implementation the DLCD's suggested indirect mechanism, this should also be stated directly in the Residential Use Table. Accordingly, the Residential Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1) and the use-specific standards for cottage clusters in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.i(1) [Design and Dimensional Standard Item #1] are modified per the Planning Commission Recommended Version of the code amendments in Attachment 2 (dated 05/09/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council tentatively approve LU 22-0007 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return on June 7, 2022 with a final version of Ordinance 2892, including findings and conclusions. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2892, 5/9/22 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 5/9/22 (Supersedes version dated 4/18/22) B. Findings, Conclusions and Order B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, 5/9/22 (see Attachment 2 of Ordinance 2892 dated 5/9/22) C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission — Public Hearing 4/11/22 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 15 D. Staff Memos & Reports D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 3/7/22 D-2 Supplemental Staff Memo, 4/1/22 E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits] F. Written Materials F-1 Email from DLCD Staff, 3/9/22 F-2 DLCD Answers to LO Questions, 4/14/22 F-3 DLCD HB 2001 Findings Guidance F-4 MHCAC Key Issues Summary Memo, 11/3/21 G. Public Testimony G-001 S-Clark, dated 3/9/2022 G-002 R-Mullen, dated 3/28/2022 G-003 B-Miles, dated 4/10/2022 G-004 R-Ervin, dated 4/11/2022 G-005 S-Labhard, dated 4/11/2022 G-006 C-Miller, dated 4/11/2022 G-007 C-Ockert, First Addition Neighbors— Forest Hills, dated 4/11/2022 Staff reports and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project webpage. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 21-0057 then press "Enter": https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-proiects 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city DRAFT: 05/06/2022 ORDINANCE 2982 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING: LOC 50.01.006 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SITE FEATURES; 50.02.001 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; 50.03.002 USE TABLE; 50.03.003 USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS; 50.04.001 DIMENSIONAL TABLE; 50.05.001 GLENMORRIE R-15 OVERLAY DISTRICT; 50.05.004 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN DISTRICT; 50.05.006 OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN; 50.05.007 LAKE GROVE VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY DISTRICT; 50.05.010 SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICTS; 50.06.001 BUILDING DESIGN; 50.06.002 PARKING; 50.06.003 CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY; 50.06.004 SITE DESIGN; 50.06.007 SOLAR ACCESS; 50.07.003 REVIEW PROCEDURES; 50.08.002 MINOR VARIANCES; 50.08.003 DESIGN VARIANCES; 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 22-0007). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, in 2019 the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 2001 (2019), which requires cities over 25,000 in population to allow the development of"middle housing" — including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters—within zones that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings; and WHEREAS, a goal of the Lake Oswego City Council is to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change;" and WHEREAS, an initiative of the Council is to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability;" and WHEREAS, the Council has held six separate study sessions regarding the implementation of HB 2001 from August 2019 through February 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received staff updates at fourteen meetings on the progress on the State's rulemaking process for HB 2001 from January 2020 through January 2021; and WHEREAS, in December 2020, the State of Oregon adopted rules to implement HB 2001: Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules ("Division 46"); and WHEREAS, City staff engaged the public early in the process, including a kickoff meeting, interviews with neighborhood association representatives, and a survey that received over 880 responses from Lake Oswego residents in January and February 2021, all providing vital input relating to the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution 21-18 creating an Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) to provide high-level policy guidance on key issues Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 1 OF 4 DRAFT: 05/06/2022 related to middle housing implementation required under HB 2001; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution 21-19 to approve appointments of a balanced membership of 13 voting members representing a diverse set of interests to the MHCAC; and WHEREAS, the MHCAC conducted six meetings between July and October 2021, where public input was accepted, in order to develop conceptual code amendment recommendations related to middle housing implementation; WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, staff and members of the MHCAC presented the MHCAC code amendment recommendations at a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Council directed staff to pursue conceptual code amendment recommendations developed by the MHCAC that are required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46; and WHEREAS, in December 2021, staff hosted a virtual Community Forum in order to provide information on middle housing implementation and to allow for public input before drafting recommended code changes; and WHEREAS, the public engagement effort associated with the virtual Community Forum included a middle housing website and online survey, available to the public through December 2021; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a total of nine work sessions from March 2021 through February 2022, with public comment to aid the Planning Commission on identifying and clarifying the scope and issues of the proposed code amendments; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on April 11, 2022, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 22-0007, with Planning Commission recommended code amendments dated May 9, 2022 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 22-0007 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on May 17, 2022, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Council was continued on June 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Community Development Code should be amended to Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 2 OF 4 DRAFT: 05/06/2022 allow middle housing while maintaining consistency with the sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability of Lake Oswego pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 22-0007), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in double underlined type and deleting text shown in strikcthrough type in Attachment 2, dated May 9, 2022. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the day of , 2022. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 3 OF 4 DRAFT: 05/06/2022 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jason Loos, City Attorney Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 4 OF 4 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 1/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.01.006 NONCONFORMING USES,STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SITE FEATURES //// 4. DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES a. Single-Family and Duplex Middle Housing Dwellings,Accessory Structures,and Historic Landmarks This subsection is applicable to nonconforming single-family(attached or detached) and duplcx dwellings, middle housing dwellings, historic landmarks designated or listed upon the Landmark Designation List, and accessory structures to a single-family dwelling,duplex middle housing dwelling, or historic landmark. i. Nonconforming Structures Not Located in the Flood Management Area Subject to the time limitation in subsection 4.c of this section, when all or any portion of a nonconforming structure listed above is damaged by any cause other than an intentional act of the owner, and no part of the structure is located in the flood management area,the reconstruction of the nonconforming structure shall be exempt from the provisions of this Code to the extent that the damaged portions of the structure failed to conform. ii. Nonconforming Structures Located in the Flood Management Area Subject to the time limitation in subsection 4.c of this section, when all or any portion of a nonconforming structure is damaged by any cause other than an intentional act of the owner, and part of the structure is located in the flood management area,the reconstruction of the nonconforming structure shall be exempt from the provisions of this Code to the extent that the damaged portions of the structure failed to conform, except that no part of the structure shall be reconstructed within the flood management area. iii. Nonconforming Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling or Landscaping Located in an RP or RC District or Construction Setback (1) Nonconforming Structures See LOC 50.05.010.4.a, Rebuilding Nonconforming Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Located in RP or RC District or Construction Setback, and LOC 50.05.010.2.b and c, General and Specific Exceptions. (2) Nonconforming Landscaping See LOC 50.05.010.5.c.iii(8)(e), Landscaping in an RC district, and LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(a)(v), Landscaping in an RP district. iv. Damage to a Nonconforming Structure by an Intentional Act of an Owner When all or any portion of a nonconforming structure is damaged by an intentional act of the owner, all reconstruction of the structure shall conform to this Code. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 2/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 b. Structures Other Than Single-Family or Duplex Middle Housing Dwellings,Accessory Structures, and Historic Landmarks i. Applicability This subsection is applicable to structures other than those listed in subsection 4.a of this section. ii. Ability to Construct or Reconstruct Nonconforming Structure (1) Damage to Nonconforming Structures of Less than 50%of the Structure Replacement Cost If a nonconforming structure is damaged from any cause to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions is less than 50%of the current replacement cost of the entire building, the rebuilding may be reconstructed to the extent that it was nonconforming, except that no portion of the structure shall be reconstructed in the flood management area. (2) Damage to Nonconforming Structures of More than 50%of the Structure Replacement Cost If a nonconforming structure is damaged from any cause to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions is 50%or more of the current replacement cost of the entire building, the rebuilding shall conform to City codes and standards. Item 1 [N]: Specify that provisions related to the damage and reconstruction of nonconforming structures will now apply to middle housing dwellings. This is required pursuant to Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules ("Division 46"), which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. Subsection 4.a.iii, below, will continue to apply standards to nonconforming single-family or duplex dwellings located within an RP or RC District or Construction Setback that will not be applied to middle housing dwellings. //// 5. NONCONFORMING LOTS a. Development Permitted A nonconforming lot that does not meet the minimum size or dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is located may be developed as permitted in that zone; provided,that(i) the structure complies with all applicable Code standards or(ii)the applicant obtains a variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.08, Variances. Exception: No middle housing except a duplex and accessory structures to a duplex shall be developed on a nonconforming lot that does not meet the minimum size or dimensional requirements of the zone. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 3/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 2 [N]:Allow for duplex construction on nonconforming lots, but do not allow for the construction of other middle housing types on nonconforming lots. Though Division 46 generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations, it does allow some exceptions to this rule. For instance, Division 46 specifically allows cities to limit the construction of middle housing on nonconforming lots to detached single-family and duplex dwellings. b. Lot Line Adjustment Lot lines may be adjusted; provided,that the degree of any existing nonconformity is not increased and no new nonconformity is created on any of the lots involved as a result of the adjustment. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 4/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.02.001 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1. RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY ZONES a. Districts The residential-low density zone districts are R-15, R-10, and R-7.5. b. Purpose To provide lands for single-family residential development with densities ranging from two to five dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. Item 1.1 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for Residential Low Density Zones to clarify that all residential low-density zones will now provide lands for middle housing development. This amendment ensures consistency with other code amendments to comply with the Division 46 requirement to allow middle housing development in all zones that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings. Item 4.1 [D]: Remove density limits for middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential Low Density Zones Purpose statement. This amendment ensures consistency with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, which require that cities eliminate any density limits applicable to middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis. 2. RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES a. Districts The residential-medium density zone districts are R-6, R-5, and R-DD. b. Purpose i. R-5 To provide lands for single-and multi-family residential development with densities ranging from seven to eight dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development..- Item 1.2 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for the R-5 Zone. See Item 1.1 [G], above. Item 4.2 [D]: Remove density limits for middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the R-5 Zone purpose statement. See Item 4.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 5/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 ii. R-DD Zone (1) The purpose of the R-DD zone is to assure that both single-family homes and middle housing are protected from noise, light,glare and reduction in privacy to the maximum extent possible during the area's transition to higher density residential use,to facilitate good architectural design and site planning which maintains residential choices of unit size, cost and other amenities and supports the economic feasibility of new construction and development, and to assure protection and compatibility of all land uses, including commercial, residential, park, open space and historic sites. Item 1.3 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for the R-DD Zone. See Item 1.1 [G], above. (2) The R-DD zone is intended for use in low density residential districts which are undergoing transition to increased densities, and which have scenic, historic, natural or residential features which should be preserved and integrated with new development. iii. R-6 Zone The FAN R-6 zone is intended to implement the land use policies of the First Addition Neighborhood Plan.The purpose of this zone is to ensure the design quality of proposed development in the neighborhood by: (1) Ensuring that proposed building designs are visually compatible with the character of existing structures, maintain adequate light and air between structures, and complement the neighborhood's architectural character. (2) Minimizing the visual impact of garages from the street, and to continue established alley uses and functions such as access to garages, off-street parking and trash removal. (3) Encouraging compatible and sensitive remodeling and renovation of existing residences. (4) Preserving the small-town character of the existing streetscape by allowing single-family and middle housing development that is human scale and pedestrian oriented. (5) Enhancing the natural environment of the neighborhood as one of the dominant characteristics. (6) Preserving FAN's historical and architectural character by encouraging infill development that is compatible in design character to landmark structures on abutting lots. Item 1.4 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for the R-6 Zone. See Item 1.1 [G], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 6/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 3. RESIDENTIAL-HIGH DENSITY ZONES a. Districts The residential-high density zone districts are R-3, R-2, R-0, and R-W. b. Purpose To provide lands for single-and multi-family residential development with densities of at least 12 dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. Item 1.5 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 1.1 [G], above. Item 4.2 [D]: Remove density limits for middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential High-Density Zones purpose statement. See Item 4.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 7/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.03.002 USE TABLE //// 2. RESIDENTIAL USE TABLE TABLE 50.03.002-1: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USE TABLE P= Permitted Use I Blank= Not Permitted I C=Conditional Use I A=Accessory Use [x]Table notes located at the end of the table Residential Use Category Use Type R-3 R_0 Use-Specific R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 R-DD R-W [3] R-2 [3] Standards [4] RESIDENTIAL USES Dwelling, PPP PPP PPPP single-family [1] detached dwelling (one per lot) Dwelling z „ l„t P P R 12 1 P — P 12 12 — line (one per lot) Dwelling, duplex P P P PPP P PPP (one per lot) Dwelling, atc ed- P P P PPP P PPP 50.03.003.1.e townhomc Townhouse Project{one per Household lot) Living Cottage cluster P P P PPP P PPP 50.03.003.1.d (one per lot) Dwelling, P P P P multi-family Dwelling, PPP PPP PPPP auadplex Dwelling,triplex P P P PPP P PPP Manufactured P P P PPP P PPP 50.03.003.1.b home (one per lot) Manufactured P P P 50.03.003.1.c home park or subdivision LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 8/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.03.002-1: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USE TABLE P= Permitted Use I Blank= Not Permitted I C=Conditional Use I A=Accessory Use [x]Table notes located at the end of the table Residential Use Category Use Type R-3 R_p Use-Specific R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 R-DD R-W [3] R-2 [3] Standards [4] Congregate C C C P P P P 50.03.003.4.aand b; housing R-2 zone: 50.03.003.3 Group care home P P P PPP P P P Group and Institutional Residential care C C C P P P P 50.03.003.4.aand b; Housing housing R-2 zone: 50.03.003.3 Skilled nursing C C C C C 50.03.003.4.c; facility R-2 zone: 50.03.003.3 //// [1] Erected on pilings over the water of Oswego Lake. Notes: [2] No commercial activity allowed. [3] If lot has multiple zones, e.g., R-0/EC, see LOC 50.02.002.2.e. [4] Site-specific use limitations, see LOC 50.02.002.2.c. Item 2 [G]:Allow for the development of all required middle housing types in applicable residential districts within the Residential Districts Use Table. Per Division 46, middle housing must generally be allowed in any zoning district that allows single-family detached residential dwellings as a permitted use. In Lake Oswego,this means that middle housing regulations must apply within the R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-6, R-5, R-DD, R-3, R-2, R-0, and R-W Zones. Item 9.1 [G]: Remove code references to attached townhouse dwellings and defer instead to the new"townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the Residential Districts Use Table. In order to align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46,the term "attached townhouse dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts. This amendment ensures consistency with the removal of the definition of"attached townhouse dwelling" elsewhere in the code.The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "attached townhouse dwellings." LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 9/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 12.1 [G]: Remove code references to zero lot line dwellings within the Residential Districts Use Table. In order to align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46,the term "zero lot line dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts.This amendment ensures consistency with the removal of the definition of"zero lot line dwelling" elsewhere in the code.The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "zero lot line dwellings." Item 1.1 [D]: Cross-reference use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the Residential Districts Use Table. This amendment ensures that code readers are able to reference the applicable use-specific standards for cottage clusters, which will be new elements within the code. See Item 1.2 [D], below. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 10/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.03.003 USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS 1. RESIDENTIAL—PERMITTED USES a. Attached, Residential Townhome Uses in West Lake Grove i. Subject to the following conditions, in addition to the other provisions of this Code: (1) The minimum net density area for attached townhome housing is 2,500 sq. ft./lot area per unit. (2) The minimum required lot width shall be 17 ft.The maximum lot coverage shall be 60%, excluding parking. (3) Each unit of attached townhome housing shall be constructed on a separate lot. ii. Within the WLG RMU zone: (1) Attached townhomes are allowed solely or in conjunction with office uses in the same building. (2) When a combination of office-commercial and attached townhome residential uses are proposed together on the same site and in separate buildings, the commercial structure(s) shall front on Boones Ferry Road. Residential buildings shall occupy the rear portion of the parcel which is most proximate to the surrounding residential zoning districts. iii. Within the WLG R-2.5 zone: (1) The use is "Attached for-sale residential townhomes." (2) When subdivisions are proposed in the WLG R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of 80%of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this subsection,the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones. //// d. Cottage Clusters In addition to the standards above,the following design standards shall be applied to cottage cluster developments. i. Individual cottage cluster dwellings must have a footprint of no more than 900 square feet each. ii. Common Courtyard Design Standards Figure 50.03.003-D:Cottage Cluster Orientation and Common Courtyard Standards LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 11/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Alley I I Cottage VA I I k X71 fry 0 Pedestrian Porch olipprPath Common Courtyard I I 15'MIN '4>—<-111 I I I I I I Sidewalk Street Parking Public Street LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 12/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 1. Q } A minimum of 50% of cottages must be oriented to the common courtyard. CI Cottages oriented to the common courtyard must be within 10 feet of the courtyard. 0 Cottages must be connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path. u J Cottages must abut the courtyard on at least two sides of the courtyard. CI The common courtyard must be at least 15 feet wide at it narrowest width. (1) Each cottage cluster shall include no more than one common courtyard per lot that meets the following standards: (a) The common courtyard must be a single, contiguous piece on one lot; (b) Cottages must abut the common courtyard on at least two sides of the common courtyard; (c) The common courtyard must contain a minimum of 150 sa. ft. per cottage within the associated cluster; (d) The common courtyard must be a minimum of 15 ft.wide at its narrowest dimension; (e) The common courtyard shall be developed with a mix of landscaping, lawn area, pedestrian paths, or paved area, and may also include recreational amenities. Impervious elements shall not exceed 75%of the total common courtyard area; (f) Pedestrian paths must be included in a common courtyard. jg) Paths that abut a courtyard shall count toward the courtyard's minimum dimension and area. Parking areas, required setbacks, and driveways do not qualify as Part of a common courtyard. (2)A common courtyard may function as a community yard. Hard and soft landscape features may be included in a common courtyard, such as pedestrian paths, lawn, groundcover, trees, shrubs, patios, benches, or gazebos. iii. Cottage Orientation (1) Each cottage within a cluster must either abut a common courtyard or must be connected to it by a pedestrian path. (2) A minimum of 50%of cottages within a cluster must be oriented to the common courtyard by: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 13/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (a) Having a primary entrance into to the living area of the cottage facing the common courtyard: lb) Being within 10 ft. from the common courtyard, measured from the wall or front porch of the cottage to the nearest edge of the common courtyard: and (c) Being connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path. (3) Cottages within 20 ft. of a property line abutting a public street must have a primary entrance into the living area of the cottage facing the street, unless required otherwise by subsection (1) above. (4) Cottages not facing the common courtyard or the street must have their primary entrance into to the living area of the cottage facing a pedestrian path that is connected to the common courtyard. See Figure 50.03.003-D: Cottage Cluster Orientation and Common Courtyard Standards. iv. Community Buildings (1) Cottage cluster developments may include community buildings for the shared use of residents that provide space for accessory amenities such as community meeting rooms, guest housing, exercise rooms, day care, or community eating areas. Community buildings must meet the following standards: fa) Each cottage cluster is permitted one community building, which shall count towards the maximum average floor area, pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.d.iv, 2.d.iv, and 3.c.iii: and lb) A community building that meets this Code's definition of a dwelling unit must meet the maximum 900 sq. ft.footprint limitation that applies to cottages, unless a covenant is recorded against the property stating that the structure is not a dwelling unit and will not be used as a primary dwelling: v. Pedestrian Access (1) A pedestrian circulation plan is required that provides accessible paths connecting the main entrance of each cottage to the following: (a) The common courtyard: (b) Shared parking area(s): (c) Community building(s): and (d) Sidewalks or public pathways in public rights-of-way abutting the site or rights-of-way if there are no sidewalks. (2) The pedestrian path must be hard-surfaced and a minimum of four feet wide. vi. Parking Design LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 14/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.03.003-E: Cottage Cluster Parking Design Standards Alley Cottage ) PI ,04® .. x7 ri 44.,_Landscape �� Buffer Pedestrian 1-f'''`I' L. / Path a 7 Pi Carport td `` Common>—<3 Courtyard OM 7Driveway >_.<._,_. . :0. >_<7 0„dm. 20' MIN Screening Garage L---....._ ,,_ Proaertyv Line — — — — —Sidewalk --.171.-- I " 7.6—. Street Parking Public Street I ❑ ] Parking allowed in dusters of up to 5 spaces.Clusters separated by minimum 4 feet of landscaping. 0 No parking or vehicle area within 20 feet from street properly line(except alley). f (: 1 No parking within 10 feet from other property lines(except alley).Driveways and drive aisles permitted within 10 feet. 0 f 1 1 1 Screening required between clustered parking areas or parking structures and public streets or common courtyards. 0 { t 1 Garages and carports must not abut common courtyards.Garage doors for individual garages must not exceed 20 feet in width. (1) Clustered Parking LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 15/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Off-street parking shall be arranged in clusters, subiect to the following standards: fa) Cottage cluster developments with fewer than 16 cottages are permitted parking clusters of not more than five abutting spaces: Jb) Cottage cluster developments with 16 cottages or more are permitted parking clusters of not more than eight abutting spaces. fc) Parking clusters must be separated from other parking spaces by at least four ft. of landscaping. Jd) Clustered parking areas may be covered. (2) Parking Location and Access fa) Off-street parking spaces and vehicle maneuvering areas shall not be located within 20 ft. of any front or side street lot line, except for lot lines abutting alleys. ft)) Off-street parking spaces and vehicle turnaround areas shall not be located between a front or side street lot line and the front facade of cottages located closest to the front or side street lot line. fc) Off-street parking spaces shall not be located within 10 feet of any other lot line„ except for lot lines abutting alleys. Driveways and drive aisles are permitted within 10 feet of other property lines. (3) Screening Landscaping screening that consists of a minimum of 50%evergreen shrubs or trees that can obtain a minimum height of three feet within two years of planting,fencing, or walls at least three ft. tall shall separate clustered parking areas and detached garages from common courtyards and public streets. (4) Garages fa) Garages (whether shared or individual) shall not abut common courtyards: ft)) Individual detached garages must not exceed 400 sq.ft. in floor area. cc) Garage doors for attached and detached individual garages must not exceed 20 ft. in width. fd) Garages with opening(s)that face the street must comply with LOC 50.06.004.1 Garage Appearance and Location Standards. vii. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall not exceed 400 sq. ft. in gross floor area. viii. Existing Structures LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 16/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 On a lot or parcel to be used for a cottage cluster development, an existing detached single-family dwelling on the same lot at the time of proposed development of the cottage cluster may remain within the cottage cluster development area under the following standards: (1) The existing dwelling may be nonconforming with respect to the requirements of this subsection (d). (2) An existing dwelling that is less than the maximum height of the underlying zone or the maximum building footprint of 900 sq. ft. may be expanded up to the maximum height or footprint. (3) The floor area of the existing dwelling shall not count towards the maximum average floor area of a cottage cluster. (4) The existing dwelling shall be excluded from the calculation of orientation toward the common courtyard, per subsection d.ii(1). ix. Shared Facilities All shared garbage and storage facilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened from view so that garbage containers and equipment not visible from the street. Item 1.2 [D]:Add design standards for cottage clusters as new Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters.These standards are based directly on the DLCD Model Code design standards for cottage clusters, pursuant to the minimum compliance track under Division 46. For cottage clusters,the minimum compliance track under Division 46 allows cities to adopt the design standards for cottage clusters defined in the DLCD Model Code ("Model Code"), or a less restrictive version of those standards. See Chapter 5 of the DLCD Middle Housing Model Code for Large Cities. Given the direction from Council and the nature of the Division 46 rules,there is little discretion for modification of most of these standards.The standards outlined above are largely intended to reflect the standards in the Model Code,though some language has been modified for consistency with the definitions of the Lake Oswego Community Development Code. e. Townhouse Proiects In addition to the standards in Subsections a-c, above, no more than four units shall be allowed in an attached townhouse structure. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 17/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 32 [D]:Add density limitations that limit townhouse projects to four attached units per townhouse project as new Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects. Though Division 46 prohibits large cities from applying maximum density standards to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters, it nonetheless allows large cities to apply a maximum density of four attached townhouse units per townhouse project. Though the City's ability to apply density standards is somewhat limited by the bill,the continued application of minimum lot area requirements will effectively control density to some degree. See Item 3.1 [D], below. 4. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS FOR GROUP AND INSTITUTIONAL HOUSING a. Residential Care Housing and Congregate Housing i. Generally Applicable Standards (1) Any site to be used for residential care housing or congregate housing shall be at least one-half acre in size.All abutting property,which is in one ownership or the subject of a joint application involving more than one ownership, shall be considered as the site. (2) All requirements of the underlying zone, such as lot coverage, height limitations, setbacks and of the Lake Oswego Code generally, shall be complied with unless modified by this section. However,there are no density limitations on the number of residential care or congregate housing living units, which may be developed, provided all the other requirements of the Code and other governmental regulatory agencies are met. (3) Within the allowed single and multi family zones, residential care housing and congregate housing shall be permitted only on those properties which abut a major or minor arterial or a major collector or neighborhood collector.Access to the development site shall be by the street with the highest classification unless prohibited by access constraints. Item 3 [G]: Modify the conditional use standards for group and institutional housing to treat single-family and middle housing equally. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// (13) Building vents and mechanical devices shall be screened from view with materials harmonious to the building. Exterior site elements such as storage,trash collection areas and noise generating equipment shall be located away from abutting property lines and sight-obscuring fencing and landscaping shall be used to screen and buffer these areas. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 18/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (14) Access to public and commercial services, parks and other recreation areas, churches, shopping, and other places frequented by the public in the course of daily life shall be made available to the residents through a transport service privately provided by the residential care housing facility. (15) Access to public sidewalks and/or pathways shall be provided. Street crossings bordering on streets three lanes and larger shall be located at traffic light controlled crossings. Crossings on two lane streets classified as either collectors or arterials may occur at sign controlled intersections. All other crossings may occur at noncontrolled intersections provided that safe sight distance per the AASHTO Standards is present.When projects are located on streets greater than 10,000 ADT and it can reasonably be expected that future residents will cross these streets, a traffic study shall be required to show that safe sight distance and adequate traffic "gaps" exist to allow safe crossing. //// 5. STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC USES //// h. Telecommunications Facilities in Residential or Mixed Residential/Commercial Zones In addition to compliance with the approval standards in LOC 50.03.003.5.g.iv and 50.07.004.12, and the general conditional use criteria in LOC 50.07.005, Conditional Use Permits,telecommunications facilities designated as a conditional use in residential or mixed residential/commercial zones shall comply with the following standards: i. New telecommunications facilities shall not be located on a parcel containing an existing single-family dwelling;duplex, rowhousc or zero lot linear middle housing dwelling. Item 4[G]: Modify the use-specific standards for public, institutional, and civic uses to treat single-family and middle housing equally. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 19/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.04.001 DIMENSIONAL TABLE The following dimensional regulations apply to the base zones as identified in each table. These dimensions may have exceptions or modifications as identified in LOC 50.04.003.1,Additional Dimensional Exceptions. 1. RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES a. Dimensional Standards Development in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones shall conform to the dimensional standards in Table 50.04.001-1 except as modified below. TABLE 50.04.001-1: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards DENSITY [2] 50.04.001.1.b Minimum [1] 80%of max 80% of max 80%of max Maximum (units/acre) [2] [2] [2] MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS [3] 50.04.001.1.c Single-Family, Duplex,Triplex, Quadplex, and Cottage Cluster Developments;Townhouse Projects Area (sq. ft.) 7,500 10,000 15,000 Width (ft.) 50 65 80 Except PD [3] Depth (ft.) — — — Townhouses(one per lot) Area (sq. ft.) 1,500 1,500 1,500 Width (ft.) 15 15 15 Depth (ft.) — — — MAX. FLOOR AREA[7] [81 I I 50.04.001.1.d Base Calculation: Additional floor area allowance per primary 3,000 sq.ft. + [(actual lot size— residential unit providing a garage (sq.ft.) 5,800 sq.ft.)x 0.19] 600 750 850 YARD SETBACKS 50.04.001.1.e Primary Structure Front (ft.) 25 25 25 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 20/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-1: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards Side Adjacent to Street (ft.) Arterial/Collector 20 20 20 Local 15 15 15 Interior Side (ft.) Total 15, 5 10 10 min. Rear(ft.) 30 30 30 Cottage Clusters 1 1 1 1 Front (ft.) 10 10 10 — Interior Side/Side Adiacent to 10 10 10 Street (ft.) — — — — Rear(ft.) 10 10 10 _ Accessory Structure Front (ft.) 25 25 25 Side Adjacent to Street (ft.) Arterial/Col lector 20 20 20 Local 15 15 15 Side 5 10 10 Height<_ 18 ft. Rear 10 15 15 Side 5 10 10 Height> 18 ft. Rear 15 15 15 MAX. LOT COVERAGE 50.04.001.1.f MAX. BASE HEIGHT(FT.) Primary Structure [4] [4] [4] 50.04.001.1.g Flat Lot 28 30 35 Lot with Sloping Topography 32 [5] 34 [5] 35 Sloped Lot 35 35 35 Lesser of 24 ft. Lesser of 24 ft. Lesser of 24 ft. Accessory Structure or height of or height of or height of 50.04.001.1.g [6] roof form of roof form of roof form of LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 21/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards primary primary primary structure structure structure Additional Standards and Modifications 50.04.001.1.b—g [1] When subdivisions are proposed, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones. [2] Net developable area divided by the minimum lot area per unit and rounded down to the nearest whole number.The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearing body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards._ Duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum density standards. For townhouse proiects,the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone. [3] Up to a 25% reduction in minimum required lot area for each dwelling unit shall be allowed to permit the relocation of a designated historic landmark, when relocation has been approved by the designated hearing body. [4] Base building height of single-family and middle housing dwellings may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides. [5] Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. (R-7.5 zone) or 30 ft. (R-10 zone) above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope, except that in no case shall the base height be greater than 32 ft. (R-7.5 zone) or 34 ft. (R-10 zone) above the natural grade. See Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography. [6] Building height exceptions shall not exceed the building height of the primary structure. 171 Cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum floor area standards, but maximum average floor area standards shall be applied to individual cottage cluster dwellings. See 50.04.001.1.d.iv Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 22/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards Cottage Cluster and 50.03.003.1.d Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. 181 Maximum floor area standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. See also 50.04.001.1.d.v Maximum Floor Area of Townhouses. [Cross-References: Height Limitation: see Charter Section 46A for 50 ft. Maximum Height of Structures in Residential Areas; Height Measure: see LOC 50.04.003.4, General Exception to Structure Height Limitations.] Item 2.1 [D]: Exempt duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per equivalent lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone,within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, the City must eliminate any provisions related to maximum density for middle housing types other than townhouses in a number of residential districts—including R-15, R-10, and R-7.5. With respect to townhouses,the CDC must be amended to allow a maximum density of at least four times the density applied to single-family dwellings in that zone, or 25 units per acre—whichever is less. Though the City's ability to apply density standards is somewhat limited by the bill,the continued application of minimum lot area requirements will effectively control density to some degree. See Item 3.1 [D], below. Item 3.1 [D]: Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Division 46 rules place limits on the City's ability to apply minimum lot area standards to middle housing. However, even within these limits the rules do provide the City with some flexibility to modify minimum lot area requirements as an approach to managing density for some middle housing types. The Planning Commission has recommended requiring that lots for triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters generally be larger than what is required for single-family houses in the R-3, R-W, R-DD, R-5, and R-6 Districts. However, because existing minimum lot sizes in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zone districts are in excess of 7,000 sq.ft., under the Division 46 rules the minimum lot size for triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters could not be increased to more than the minimum lot size for single-family dwellings in these zones. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 23/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 4.4 [D]: Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension requirements that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 4.1 [D], above. Item 5.1 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to single-family housing and middle housing within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. Item 6.1 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design and dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing dimensional standards—including minimum setbacks—for single-family housing to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects. No modifications to existing minimum setback standards are necessary to move forward on Council's guidance to apply these standards to middle housing types other than cottage clusters. Division 46 stipulates that minimum setbacks for cottage clusters must be based on the DLCD Model Code, which limits all minimum setbacks to 10 feet. Item 7.1 [D]: Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. For cottage clusters,the minimum compliance track under Division 46 allows cities to adopt the design standards for cottage clusters defined in the Model Code, or a less restrictive version of those standards. Given the direction from Council and the nature of the Division 46 rules,there is little discretion for modification of most of these standards. The exemption from maximum floor area standards for cottage clusters is intended to comply with the Model Code, which do not allow large cities to apply maximum floor area standards to cottage cluster developments. Item 10.1 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. City Council provided staff with direction to apply bulk and scale controls to the entire townhouse project, instead of individual lots, consistent with the definition of"townhouse project" in Division 46. Because townhouses are defined as attached structures with each unit located on its own individual lot,townhouse standards are typically applied to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouse lots. In order to address this, it is necessary to distinguish that dimensional standards will apply to a townhouse project, as opposed to a townhouse (or individual townhouse lot). LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 24/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography 6-ft OALption to Bose height - zone base height dependent 4-ft. adjustment • to Bose height for topography b. Density—Additional Standards There are no additional standards for density in this section. c. Lot Dimensions—Additional Standards There are no additional standards for lot dimensions in this section. d. Floor Area—Additional Standards i. Floor Area of Garages and Accessory Structures (1) Garage and Accessory Structures Included in Calculation For purposes of calculating maximum floor area for dwellings in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones,the floor area of garages and accessory structures shall be included in the total that is subject to the maximum floor area standard of this section. (2) Exceptions Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from floor area calculations: (a) For lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. in area—up to 200 sq.ft. (b) For lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area—up to 400 sq. ft. ii. Maximum Floor Area of Accessory Structures An accessory structure<_ 18 ft. in height shall not exceed a total 800 sq. ft. in size, or the square footage of the footprint of the primary structure, whichever is less.An accessory structure > 18 ft. in height shall not exceed a total 600 sq. ft. in size or the square footage of the footprint of the primary structure, whichever is less. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 25/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iii. Maximum Floor Area of Nonresidential Structures Maximum floor area for uses other than residential structures and their accessory structures shall be as follows: (1) Conditional uses: Established as part of the conditional use process. (2) Other nonresidential uses: No greater than 1:1. iv. Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster Maximum average floor area for dwelling units within a cottage cluster development shall be as follows: R-7.5: 1.000 sq.ft. R-10 and R-15: 1,200 sq. ft. Item 8.1 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,200 sq.ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-10 and R-15 Zones. Given the direction from Council and the nature of the Division 46 rules,there is little discretion for modification of most dimensional standards. However, the rules do allow for the City to limit the overall floor area (size) of each dwelling in a cottage cluster. City Council directed staff to limit the size of units in a cottage cluster to more closely replicate the floor area permitted for single-family dwellings in a given zone.The Council generally supported applying a maximum average floor area for each dwelling in a cottage cluster development of 1,200 square feet in the R-10 and R-15 Zones. Item 8.2 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,000 sq. ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-7.5 Zone. City Council generally supported applying a maximum average floor area for each dwelling in a cottage cluster development of 1,000 square feet in the R-7.5 Zone. See Item 8.1 [D], above. v. Maximum Floor Area of Townhouses Maximum floor area standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 10.2 [D]: Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones. See Item 10.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 26/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 e. Yard Setback—Additional Standards i. Zero Lot Line Units Two lots that have zero lot line units are considered a unified site for the purposes of meeting all required setbacks. ii. Planned Development Setbacks for a planned development will be determined at the time of review.The maximum setback that can be required is 35 ft. iii. Special Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots On steeply sloped lots the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings and middle housing shall be 18 ft. Item 11.1 [D]: Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings within the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Low-Density Zones. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. ,iv. Corner Lots Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street.The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots,the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. v. Measurement of Side Yard Setback For purposes of this section, the width of the side yard setback shall be measured from that portion of the side property line that is nearest to any portion of the structure to that portion of the structure. vi. Common Party Walls Prohibited—Accessory Structures Except for boathouses within the Oswego Lake setback, accessory structures on abutting lots may not be built with common party walls. vii. Cottage Cluster Building Separation Cottages shall be separated from each other by a minimum distance of 10 feet. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 27/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 9.1 (D]:Add building separation standards for cottages within a cottage cluster to the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Low-Density Districts. A ten-foot separation between cottages is the maximum allowed pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. f. Lot Coverage—Standards i. Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage for the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 districts shall be as follows: TABLE 50.04.001-2: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LOT COVERAGES Height(ft.) of Maximum Lot Coverage (%) primary structure R-7.5 R-10 R-15 22 or less 35 35 35 >22 to 23 33 34 34 >23 to 24 30 32 33 >24 to 25 28 30 32 >25 to 26 25 28 30 >26 to 27 25 27 29 >27 to 28 25 25 28 >28 to 29 25 25 27 >29 to 30 25 25 25 >30 to 31 25 25 25 >31 to 32 25 25 25 >32 to 33 25 25 25 >33 to 34 25 25 25 >34 25 25 25 (1) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards. (4412) Maximum lot coverage standards shall be applied to a townhouse proiect. and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 28/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 12.1 [D]: Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the Maximum Lot Coverage standards for Residential Low-Density Zones. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing dimensional standards —including maximum lot coverage—for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects. Division 46 minimum compliance provisions also require cities to exempt cottage clusters from maximum lot coverage standards. ii. Special Requirements for Schools (1) Lot coverage shall not exceed 30%for a school built to accommodate at least 100 students and that has at least two grades within the range of K-12; (2) Lot coverage shall not exceed 30%for a mixed use development that includes a school built to accommodate at least 100 students and that has at least two grades within the range of K-12; iii. Garage Footprint Exemption The garage footprint, including any area directly above or below the garage, shall be exempt from lot coverage as provided below: (1) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq.ft. shall be exempt for garages that are: (a) Rear-or side-loading, or (b) Located 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front lot line, or (c) In the case of corner lots, 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front and street side lot lines. (2) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. shall be exempt for a detached garage that meets subsection 1.f.iii(1) of this section, and the lot is greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. g. Height—Additional Standards A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed for: i. Single-Family Dwellings and Middle Housing Base building height may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the minimum code standards provided in Table 50.04.001-1 above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 29/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 5.2 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards for Low-Density Residential Zones. See Item 5.1 [D], above. ii. Any Structure Roof forms or architectural features(such as cupolas or dormers) of any structure provided that these roof forms or features: (1) Do not extend more than six ft. above the maximum specified base height; (2) Do not, in total, exceed one-third of the width of the building or buildings as measured on any elevation drawing for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections; and (3) Do not, in total, cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. Examples of permitted exceptions are illustrated in Figure 50.04.001-B: Height Exceptions. ///// 2. RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES a. Dimensions Development in the R-DD, R-5, and R-6 zones shall conform to the dimensional standards in Table 50.04.001-3 except as modified below: TABLE 50.04.001-3: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards DENSITY 50.04.001.2.b SF Subdivisions: 5 lots/acre; Duplex Minimum [1] 80%of max 80% of max Subdivisions: 10 units/acre; Multi-Family Subdivisions: 14 units/acre Maximum _ (units/acre) [2] [2],[3] MIN. LOT I 50.04.001.2.c LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 30/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-3: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards DIMENSIONS Single-Family, Duplex and Triplex Dwellings; Townhouse Projects SF/Duplex. 5,000- Area (sq. ft.) 6,000 per du 5,000 per du (tetaa};MD 15,000 Except PD {total) _[4] Width (ft.) 50 — I — Depth (ft.} — — — — Cottage Clusters and Quadplexes Area (sa. ft.) 7,000 7,000 7,000 Width (ft.) 50 — — Townhouses(one per lot Area (sci. ft.) 1,500 1,500 1,500 Width (ft.) 15 15 15 MAX. FLOOR AREA (61 50.04.001.2.d Lot>_5,000 sq. ft. 2,850 sq. ft. + [(actual lot size— 2,750 sq.ft. + 5,000 sq.ft.)x R-5 and R-6 districts: [(actual lot size— 0.28] +500 sq. ft.floor area allowance per primary 6,000 sq. ft.)x Lot<5,000 sq. ft. residential unit 0.19] 2,850 sq. ft. + providing a garage [(actual lot size— 5,000 sq.ft.) x 0.48] YARD SETBACKS See 50.04.001.2.e • MAX. LOT See 50.04.001.2.f LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 31/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards COVERAGE MAX. HEIGHT (FT.) 50.04.001.2.g Primary Structure 28 — 28 Flat Lot 28 28 — Sloping Lot [5] [5] — Sloped Lot 32 35 — Accessory Lesser of 24 ft. or Lesser of 24 ft. or Structure height of roof form height of roof form 28 of primary of primary structure structure [1] When subdivisions are proposed in the R-5 and R-6 zones or multi-family development is proposed in the R5 zone, the number of lots or dwelling units required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-DD zone,the density is computed by multiplying the net developable area by either five,ten, or 14 per the applicable type of development.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5. [2] Net developable area divided by the minimum lot area per unit and rounded down to the nearest whole number.The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearing body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards._ Duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters in residential zones are exempt from maximum density standards. For townhouse proiects in residential zones, the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required Per single-family dwelling in that zone. [3] R-DD zone maximum density expressed in number of dwelling units per net developable area is computed by dividing the net developable area by 2,000 sq.ft. and rounding down to the nearest whole number. Duplexes,triplexes. quadplexes. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 32/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards and cottage clusters in the R-DD zone are exempt from maximum density standards, For townhouse proiects in the R-DD zone,the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone. [4] Except for structures that have been determined by the State or National Register of Historic Places as being of historic significance. [5] Lots with sloping topography—Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope.The base height shall not exceed 32 ft. above the natural grade. See Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography. f61 Cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum floor area standards, but maximum average floor area standards shall be applied to individual cottage cluster dwellings. See 50.04.001.2.d.iv Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster and 50.03.003.1.d Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. Item 2.2 [D]: Exempt duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot,for lots that comply with minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone, within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 2.1 [D], above. Item 3.2 [D]: Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 3.1 [D], above. Item 4.5 [D]: Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension requirements that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 4.1 [D], above. Item 7.2 [D]: Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 7.1 [D], above. Item 10.3 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project"within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 10.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 33/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 b. Density—Additional Standards In the R-5 and R-DD zones, applicants may request up to a 25%density bonus for public agency rental housing projects. In the R-5 zone this request is processed as a conditional use and may not include residential care housing or accessory dwelling units. In the R-DD zone this may not include accessory dwelling units. //// d. Floor Area—Additional Standards //// iv. R-6. R-5.and R-DD Zones (1) Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster Maximum average floor area for dwelling units within a cottage cluster development shall be 1,000 sa. ft. Item 8.3 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,000 sq.ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-6, R-5, and R-DD Zones. City Council generally supported applying a maximum average floor area for each dwelling in a cottage cluster development of 1,000 square feet in the R-6, R-5, and R-DD Zones. See Item 8.1 [D], above. e. Yard Setback—Additional Standards i. R-5 Yard Setback Standards (1) Required Setbacks TRACK REQU Structure Type Front(ft.) Side (ft.) Rear(ft.) Attached Dwellings 10—Exterior Wall including Duplexes, Triplexes, 10 10 Cluadplexes, and 0—Attached Wall Townhouse Proiects Detached Dwelling 5—Side Yard 20 10—Street Side 20 Yard Cottage Clusters 10 10 10 Other Types of 10 10 10 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 34/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-4:YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Structure Type Front(ft.) Side(ft.) Rear(ft.) Primary Structures and All Accessory Structures Item 6.2 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the R-5 Yard Setback Standards. See Item 6.1 [D], above. (2) Additional Setback Standards and Modifications (a) Where a lot zoned R-5 abuts a lot zoned R-6, 7.5, 10, or 15,the building on the R-5 lot shall be set back from the common line a distance equal to the required R-5 yard setback or the height of the primary building on the R-5 lot, whichever is greater. (b) Special Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots. On steeply sloped lots,the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings and middle housing shall be 18 ft. Item 11.2 [D]: Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings within the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Medium-Density Zones. See Item 11.1 [D], above. ii. R-6 Yard Setback Standards (1) Required Setbacks TABLE 50.04.001-5: MINIMUM YARD SETBACKS—R-6 ZONE Primary Cottage Accessory Other Accessory Garage-Vehicle Structures (ft.) Clusters Structures (ft.) [1] Structures(ft.) Opening (ft.) Front 20 [3] 10 20 [3] 20 [3] 15 [2] Side Adjacent Arterial/Collector: 10 Arterial/Collector: Arterial/Collector: Arterial/Collector: to a Street 20; Local: 7.5 20; Local: 7.5 20 Local: 7.5 20; Local: 15 Side 7.5—Exterior Wall 10 5 7.5 7.5 0—Attached Wall Rear 15 10 5 15 15 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 35/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-5: MINIMUM YARD SETBACKS—R-6 ZONE Primary Cottage Accessory Other Accessory Garage-Vehicle Structures(ft.) Clusters Structures(ft.) [1] Structures(ft.) Opening(ft.) Notes: [1] < 600 sq.ft. and with walls< 10 ft. in height below the eave. [2] Behind the front building line of the house (excluding a porch). [3] On corner lots,the front setback shall be measured on the narrow street frontage. Item 6.3 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. (2) Additional Setback Standards and Modifications (a) A projecting covered front porch may extend into the front yard setback up to six ft. (b) Additions to primary and accessory structures built before July 1, 2010, are subject to the following minimum side yard setbacks: TABLE 50.04.001-6: MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS Structures<_ 18 ft. in height Structures> 18 ft. in height 5 ft. minimum width on a side, 15 ft. cumulative, except a multi-story structure may have a smaller side yard setback than required 5 ft. by this section where the ground floor is set back a minimum of 5 ft. and the remainder of the structure is stepped back from the building line by at least 4 ft. on each side. iii. R-DD Yard Setback Standards //// (3) Multi-Family Dwelling an-Bu-plex Development in R-DD LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 36/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (a) When a new multi-family development or the expansion or reconstruction of an existing multi-family development occurs in an R-DD zone subject to minor development review which abuts an existing less intensive residential use,the proposed multi-family structure shall be set back from the boundary of the less intensive use by at least the amount of feet equal to the height of the multi-family structure. (b) New duplex devvicnitytt,er UN: vgjwn ian or reconstruction of an v.; tires duplex dev .-)"\'r,n"lt in th/E Il ubject to DRC r shall he set back Fro..-, the boundary of the less intensive use by at Irei ;.G ft. when the proposed development: {i) k greatar than 28 ft. in hcibht, and (ii) AlovAwm axisting less intensive sidontjal ue1 (eb) Developments subject to subsection 2.e.iii(3)(a) or ) of this section shall provide a landscaped area at least five ft.wide within the setback area abutting the less intensive use. The purpose of the landscaped area is to provide a vegetative screen. Plant material used for screening and buffering shall be of a size that will achieve sufficient height within three years of the date of planting to provide adequate screening. Item 6.4 [D]: Clarify that the minimum setback standards for single-family dwellings will be applied to middle housing within the R-DD Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. (4) Corner Lots Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street.The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. iv. Cottage Cluster Building Separation in the R-6. R-5 and R-DD Zones Cottages shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet. Item 9.2 [D]:Add building separation standards for cottages within a cottage cluster to the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Medium-Density Districts. See Item 9.1 [D], above. f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces—Additional Standards i. R-5 Lot Coverage (1) Maximum Lot Coverage (a) The following maximum lot coverage percentages are applicable to townhouse projects and single-family detached, duplex, triplex, and auadr lex structures in the R-5 zone: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 37/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-7: R-5 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE Height(ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage(%) 22 or less 45 >22 to 25 42 >25 to 28 38 >28 to 30 35 >30 35 (b) Cottage clusters and individual townhouse lots are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards. (c) The maximum lot coverage for all other structures in the R-5 zone is 50%. Item 12.2 [D]:Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the R-5 Lot Coverage Standards. See Item 12.1 [D], above. (2) Garage Footprint Exemption The garage footprint, including any habitable area directly above or below the garage, shall be exempt from lot coverage as provided below: (a) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq. ft. shall be exempt for garages that are: (i) Rear-or side-loading; or (ii) Located 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front lot line; or (iii) In case of corner lots, 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front and street side lot lines. (b) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. shall be exempt for a detached garage that meets subsection 2.f.i(2)(a) of this section, and the lot is greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. (3) Detached Accessory Structures Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations as follows: (a) For lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. in area—up to 200 sq. ft. (b) For lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area—up to 400 sq. ft. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 38/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 ii. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces (1) Lot coverage in the R-6 zone shall not exceed the following: Height of Structure Lot size in sq.ft. 20' or >20'to >21'to >22'to >23'to >24'to >25'to >26'to >27, less 21' 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' 7,000 or 45% 43% 42% 40% 38% 36% 35% 35% 35% less >7,000— 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 35% 34% 33% 8,500 >8,500— 35% 35% 35% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000 35% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% —11,500 >11,500 35% 34% 33% 30% 28% 27% 25% 25% 25% (2) No more than 60%of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces. (3) Provided it is the only garage on the site,the garage footprint, including any habitable area above or below the garage, of a detached garage area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations as follows: (a) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq. ft.for lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq.ft. in area. (b) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft.for lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area. (4) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards. (5) Maximum lot coverage standards shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 12.3 [D]: Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards. See Item 12.1 [D], above. iii. R-DD Lot Coverage (1) The following maximum lot coverage shall be permitted in the R-DD zone: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 39/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-9: R-DD MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE Dwelling Type Maximum Lot Coverage Single-Family Detached 35% Duplex, Zero Lot LineMiddle 45% Housing Multi-Family Dwelling 55% Item 12.4 [D]:Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table. See Item 12.1 [D], above. (2) Theing manim►:m/arepunts of ilmpervious surface coverage shall be permitted limited to a maximum of 60% in the R-DD zone for all structures other than cottage clusters. See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters.: 111 Maximum Impermeable Surface Dwelling—Type Allowed Single Family Detached 60% Duplex, Zero Lot Line 60% Multi Family Dwelling and 60% Rowhousc (3) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage requirements of the zone. (2414) Maximum lot coverage standards shall be applied to a townhouse project. and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 12.5 [D]: Clarify that maximum lot coverage applies to townhouse projects, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings, and that cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. See Item 12.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 40/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 13 [D]: Clarify maximum impervious surface standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects in the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. Division 46 allows cities to apply maximum impervious standards to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes.This amendment clarifies that the existing maximum impervious surface standards that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the R-DD Zone will also apply to duplexes,triplexes, and quadplexes.The amendment also specifies these maximum impervious surface standards will be applied to a townhouse project—as opposed to individual townhouse lots. Item 14[D]: Clarify which maximum impervious surface standards apply to cottage clusters by cross-referencing the use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. Though the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 do not allow cities to apply maximum impervious surface standards to cottage cluster developments,there are other maximum impervious surface regulations that apply to common courtyards for cottage clusters within the use-specific standards.This amendment clarifies that cottage clusters are not subject to the maximum impervious surface requirements of the base zone, and references the maximum impervious surface standards within the use-specific standards for cottage clusters. g. Height—Additional Standards i. R-5 Height Restrictions for Primary Structures (1) Projects Greater Than One-Half Acre For attached development in the R-5 zone, the primary structure height shall not exceed: No. of Primary Maximum Base Height for Structures on Site Primary Structures One: 50 ft. Two or more: 40 ft. average, with no individual primary structure exceeding 50 ft. base building height. (2) Base Height Except as provided in subsections 2.g.i(1), 2.g.i(4) and 2.g.ii of this section, the base height of a structure in the R-5 zone shall not exceed: (a) Flat Lots—28 ft. (b) Lots with Sloping Topography—See subsection 2.g.iii of this section. (c) Sloped Lots—35 ft. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 41/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (3) In the R-5 zone, a structure shall not exceed the base height standards set forth in subsection 2.g.i(2) of this section if the structure is closer than 60 ft.to a lot carrying a residential designation other than R-0, R-3, or R-5. (4) Exceptions to Base Building Height A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed for single-family and middle housing dwellings—building height may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the underlying zone code standards provided in subsections 2.g.i(1) and (2) of this section. Item 5.3 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone. See Item 5.1 [D], above. //// iv. R-DD Additional Height Standards (1) Primary Structures Average height may increase to 40 ft. over the entire site,with no individual structure exceeding 50 ft., in the following circumstances: (a) The lot or lots developed are one-half acre or greater in area; and (b) 25%or more of the gross site area is constrained by steep slopes, floodplain, or mapped Sensitive Lands; and (c) Any portion of structures taller than 35 ft. is set back at least 50 ft. from a public street. (2) Detached Single-Family Dwelling and Middle Housing/Greater Height Due to Greater Setback In addition to the building base height exceptions in this section,the building base height for detached single-family dwellings and middle housing may be increased by one ft.for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the minimum code standards for the zone. Item 5.4 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone. See Item 5.1 [D], above. 3. RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES a. Dimensions Development in the R-W, R-3, R-2, and R-0 zones shall conform to the development standards in Table 50.04.001-11 except as modified below: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 42/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSION R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards DENSITY 50.04.001.3.b Minimum 80% of max. [1] 80%of max. [1] 12 lots or 20 lots or units/acre [2] units/acre [2] Maximum (units/acre) [3] [3] — — MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS 50.04.001.3.c Single-Family_ and Duplex Dwellings; Townhouse Projects; Area (sq. 3,375 3,375 No min. No min. ft.) No min. for PD Per Dwelling 3,375 3,375 Ale ri+ No min. Triplexes Area (sq. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 ft. Cottage Clusters and Quadplexes Area (sq. 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Townhouses (one per lot) Area (sq. 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Multi- amily Dwellings Area (sq. ft. 3,375 — No min. Per 3,375 — No min. Dwelli ig MAX. FLOOR AREA II7l 50.04.001.3.c Residential No max. 1:1 1.2:1 1.2:1 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 43/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSION R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards Conditional Use Established as part of the conditional use process Nonresidential 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 MAX. LOT COVERAGE 50.04.001.3.d Lot Coverage 100 50 Table 55 50.04.001-12 YARD SETBACKS 50.04.001.3.e Primary Dwelling (Detached) Front (ft.) 0 20 20 Side Adjacent to Street(ft.) 0 10 Table 10 50.04.001-13 Side (ft.) 0 5 5 Rear (ft.) 0 20 20 Primary Dwelling (Attached) Front 0 10 10 Side 0 10 (exterior wall); Table 10 0 (attached wall) 50.04.001-13 Rear 0 10 10 Cotta a Clusters 1 1 l Front It.) 0 10 10 Interior Side/ Table Side Ajiacent to 0 10 10 Street (ft.) 50.04.001-13 Rear (f.) 0 10 10 Other Types of Primary Structures and All Accessory Structures Front (ft.) 0 10 Table 10 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 44/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards Side Adjacent to 0 — 50.04.001-13 — Street(ft.) Arterial/Collector 0 — — Local 0 — — Side 0 10 10 Height Rear 0 10 10 MAX. BASE HEIGHT(FT.) 50.04.001.3.f Flat Lot — 28 28 28 Lots with Sloping — [4] [4] [4] Topography Sloped Lot — 35 35 35 From Oswego Lake Surface 2425/27 [5] — — — Elevation Lesser of 24 ft. or Lesser of 24 ft. or Lesser of 24 ft. or Accessory height of roof height of roof height of roof Structure form of primary form of primary form of primary structure structure structure [1] When subdivisions are proposed in the R-W and R-3 zones or multi-family development is proposed in the R-3 zone, the number of lots or dwelling units required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size or units required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003, Exceptions, Projections, and Encroachments. [2] When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2 or R-0 zones or multi-family development is proposed in the R-0 zone, minimum density is computed by multiplying the net developable area by either 20 or 12 per the applicable zone.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003, Exceptions, Projections and Encroachments. [3] Computed by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot area per unit and rounding down to the neirest whole number. Duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters are exempt from maximum density standards. For townhouse proiects, the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone. [4] Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope.The base height shall not exceed 32 ft. above the natural LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 45/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards grade. See Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography. [5] For any portion of the lot above the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation, maximum building height shall not exceed 24-125 ft. For any portion of the lot at or below the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation, maximum building height shall not exceed 27 ft. above the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation.The maximum building height of 27 ft. above the Os3vego Lake Surface Elevation shall extend landward until it meets the 2425 ft. height limit for the portion of the lot above the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation. See Figure 50.04.001-11[5]. [6] Site-specific dimensional standards, see LOC 50.02.002.2.c. f71 Cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum floor area standards, but maximum average floor arEa standards shall be applied to individual cottage cluster dwellings. See 50.04.001.2.d.iv Maximum Average Flopr Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster and 50.03.003.1.d Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. Item 2.3 [D]: Exempt duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot,for lots that comply with minimum lot area for townhouse projects,within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 2.1 [D], above. Item 3.3 [D]: Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 3.1 [D], above. Item 4.6 [D]: Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension requirements that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 4.1 [D], above. Item 6.5 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. Item 7.3 [D]: Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 7.1 [D], above. Item 10.4 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table.See Item 10.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 46/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 15.1 [D]: Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft.to 25 ft. within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 do not allow cities to apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and do not allow cities to apply a maximum height of less than 25 feet or two stories.This amendment changes the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft.to 25 ft. in order to comply with this provision. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 47/127 Attachment 2 - Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.04.001-11[5]: Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots Law I'3''Txsan 111 Weter 5w444.hebahtllinyNkMIXRMded InFO*etd A 27 et. 24 II. t4v-ithlate { swego lake -turf are El-evaNan LBn'd hei.ht Iifi� adn 'Niter Swine Nit&thAstFofi tXRMded Weigand 27ft_ 2S Pir Oswego Lake 5urfara Elevation LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 48/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 15.2 [D]: Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft.to 25 ft. within the Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots figure. This amendment clarifies that the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation is now 25 ft. within the graphic that accompanies this provision. See Item 15.1 [D], above. ///// b. Density—Additional Standards In the R-0, R-2, and R-3 zones, applicants may request up to a 25% density bonus for public agency rental housing projects.This request is processed as a conditional use and may not include residential care housing or accessory dwelling units. c. Lot Area and Floor Area—Additional Standards i. For projects on properties with a Sensitive Lands overlay designation, lot areas and floor areas may be modified as provided in LOC 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. ii. Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from floor area calculations up to a maximum of: (1) For lot sizes up to 10,000 sq.ft.—up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq.ft. (2) For lot sizes greater than 10,000 sq.ft.—up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. iii. Maximum average floor area for dwelling units within a cottage cluster shall be 1,000 sq. ft. Item 8.4 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,000 sq.ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-W, R-3, and R-2, and R-0 Zones. See Item 8.1 [D], above. iv. Maximum floor area standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 10.5 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 10.1 [D], above. d. Lot Coverage—Additional Standards i. R-2 Lot Coverage LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 49/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-12: R-2 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE Structure Type Max. Lot Coverage(%) Single-Family Detached 35 Single Family Attached 55 Row-Iheu+seTownhouse Proiect 55 Duplex,Triplex, and Quadplex 55 Other Structures 50 Item 12.6 [D]: Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for townhouse projects, duplexes,triplexes, and quadplexes within the R-2 Lot Coverage Table. See Item 12.1 [D], above. ii. R-0, R-2, and R-3 Exemptions (1) Garage Footprint Exemption The garage footprint, including any habitable area directly above or below the garage, shall be exempt from lot coverage as provided below: (a) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq. ft. shall be exempt for garages that are: (i) Rear-or side-loading, or (ii) Located 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front lot line, or (iii) In the case of corner lots, 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front and street side lot lines. (b) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. shall be exempt for a detached garage that meets subsection 3.d.ii(1)(a) of this section, and the lot is greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. (2) Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations as follows: (a) For lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. in area—up to 200 sq.ft. (b) For lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area—up to 400 sq. ft. (3) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage requirements. (4) Maximum lot coverage standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse project, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 50/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 12.7 [D]: Clarify that maximum lot coverage standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse project, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings, and that cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards within the R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions. See Item 12.1 [D], above. e. Yard Setback—Additional Standards i. Corner Lots Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street.The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots,the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. ii. R-2 Yard Setbacks Development in the R-2 districts shall meet the following setbacks: Side (ft.) Structure Type Front (ft.) Rear(ft.) Exterior Attached Duplex 10 7 0 10 Zero Lot Line 40 7 0 4-0 RowheuseTownhouse 10 7 8 10 Project (Triplex 10 7 _ 10 Quadplex 10 7 _ 10 Cottage Cluster 10 10 = 10 Detached Dwelling 20 Single-story dwelling: 5 ft. 20 Multi-story dwelling: 15 ft. cumulative, 5 ft. minimum on a side [1] Other Primary 10 10 10 10 Structures Accessory Structures Same as for Same as for primary 10 primary structure type structure type Notes: [1] Multi-story dwelling: Cumulative yard may be reduced where ground floor is set back minimum of 5 ft. and the LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 51/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Side (ft.) Structure Type Front(ft.) Rear(ft.) Exterior Attached remainder of the dwelling is set back a minimum of 9 ft. from the side lot line. Item 6.6 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the R-2 Yard Setbacks Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. iii. Abutting Low Density Residential Where a lot zoned R-0, 2, or 3 abuts a lot zoned R-6, 7.5, 10, or 15 or abuts a lot that would be zoned R-7.5, 10 or 15 upon annexation into the City per LOC 50.01.004.5,the building on the R-0, 2, or 3 lot shall be set back from the common line a distance equal to the required yard setback for the zone in Table 50.04.001-13 or the height of the primary building on the R-0, 2, or 3 lot, whichever is greater. iv. Special Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots On steeply sloped lots,the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings and middle housing shall be 18 ft. Item 11.3 [D]: Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings within the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 11.1 [D], above. v. Cottage Cluster Building Separation Cottages shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet. Item 9.3 [D]:Add building separation standards for cottages within a cottage cluster to the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 9.1 [D], above. f. Height—Additional Standards i. Projects Greater Than One-Half Acre (1) On a lot or lots developed as one project of one-half acre or greater in total area for the R-0 and R-3 zones, the primary structure height shall not exceed: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 52/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 No. of Primary Maximum Base Height for Structures on Site Primary Structures One: 50 ft. Two or more: 40 ft. average, with no individual primary structure exceeding 50 ft. base building height. (2) On a lot or lots being developed as one project of one-half acre or greater in total area for the R-2 zone, the primary structure height shall not exceed: No. of Primary Maximum Base Height for Structures on Site Primary Structures One: 35 ft. Two or more: 32 ft. average, with no individual primary structure exceeding 35 ft. base building height. ii. Base Height Except as provided in subsections 3.f.i and 3.f.v of this section,the base height of a structure in the R-0, R-2, and R-3 zone shall not exceed: (1) Flat lots—28 ft. (2) Lots with sloping topography—Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. above the highest point on the natural grade within the building envelope, except that in no case shall the base height be greater than 32 ft. above the natural grade. (3) Sloped lots—35 ft. iii. In the R-0 or R-3, a structure shall not exceed the base height standards set forth in subsection 3.f.ii of this section if the structure is closer than 60 ft.to a lot carrying a residential designation other than R-0, R-3 or R-5. iv. Exceptions to Base Building Height In addition to the maximum structure height determined by subsections 3.f.i through 3.f.iii of this section, a greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed as follows: (1) Single-family and middle housing dwellings—Building height, inclusive of projections permitted by the building height exceptions under subsection 3.f.iv(2) of this section, may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the underlying zone code standards provided in subsections 3.f.i and 3.f.ii of this section; or LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 53/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 5.5 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 5.1 [D], above. (2) Any primary structure—For roof forms, or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers; provided, that these roof forms or features: (a) Do not extend more than six ft. above the maximum specified base height; (b) Do not, in total, exceed one-third of the width of the building or buildings as measured on any elevation drawing for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections; and (c) Do not, in total, cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 54/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.04.004 SOLAR ADJUSTMENTS 1. EXEMPTIONS FROM SOLAR DESIGN STANDARD A development is exempt from the requirements of LOC 50.06.007.1.c, Solar Design Standard, if the reviewing authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to the site. A development is partially exempt from LOC 50.06.007.1.c to the extent the reviewing authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to a corresponding portion of the site. If a partial exemption is granted for a given development,the remainder of the development shall comply with the solar access requirements. a. Slopes The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is sloped 20%or more in a direction greater than 45° east or west of true south, based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor. b. Off-Site Shade The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is within the shadow pattern of off-site features, such as but not limited to structures, topography, or solar-unfriendly vegetation, which will remain after development occurs on the site from which the shade is originating. i. Shade from an existing or approved off-site dwelling in a single family residential zone and from topographic features is assumed to remain after development of the site. ii. Shade from an off-site structure in a zone other than a single family residential zone is assumed to be the shadow pattern of the existing or approved development thereon or the shadow pattern that would result from the largest structure allowed at the closest setback on adjoining land, whether or not that structure now exists. Item 16 [D]: Eliminate references to single-family zones within the solar adjustments standards related to off-site shade. Because this package of middle housing code amendments will allow for the development of middle housing in all areas that allow detached single-family dwellings,there will no longer be zoning districts that are limited to detached single-family dwellings.This requires clarification within the areas of the code that currently refer to "single-family residential zones".This amendment clarifies that the solar adjustments standards will now apply equally to all dwelling types within all residential zones. iii. Shade from off-site vegetation is assumed to remain after development of the site if: the trees that cause it are situated in a required setback; or they are part of a developed area, public park, or legally reserved open space; or they are in or separated from the developable remainder of a parcel by an undevelopable area or feature; or they are part of landscaping required pursuant to a development permit issued pursuant to this Code. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 55/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iv. Shade from other off-site sources is assumed to be shade that exists or that will be cast by development for which applicable development permits have been approved on the date a complete application for the development is filed. c. On-Site Shade The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is requested, is: i. Within the shadow pattern of on-site features such as, but not limited to, structures and topography which will remain after the development occurs; or ii. Contains solar-unfriendly trees at least 30 ft.tall and more than six in. in diameter measured four ft. above the ground which have a crown cover over at least 80%of the site or relevant portion.The applicant can show such crown cover exists using a scaled survey or an aerial photograph. If granted,the exemption shall be approved subject to the condition that the applicant preserve at least 50%of the trees that cause the shade that warrants the exemption.The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the County Recorder binding the applicant to comply with this requirement.The City shall be made a party of any covenant or restriction created to enforce any provision of this section.The covenant or restriction shall not be amended without written City approval. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 56/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.001 GLENMORRIE R-15 OVERLAY DISTRICT //// 5. PLANTINGS AND BUFFERING a. Applicability A Plantings and Buffering Plan shall be submitted when a building permit is required for: i. Construction of new structures; ii. Remodeling that increases the footprint of an existing structure by more than 400 sq. ft. and is not the creation of new middle housing through conversion or addition to an existing single-family dwelling; or Item 1 [0]: Exclude middle housing created through conversions or additions to a single-family dwelling in the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay from the requirement to submit a Plantings and Buffering plan. Division 46 does not allow for design standards to be applied to middle housing created through conversions or additions to single-family dwellings.This amendment clarifies that middle housing created through conversions or additions to an existing detached single-family dwelling will not be subject to plantings and buffering requirements within the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 57/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.004 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN DISTRICT ///// 13. CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Purpose By compliance with the clear and objective standards of this article, the purpose of the Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standard, to guide the redevelopment of downtown Lake Oswego in a manner that creates a village character with a feeling of vitality and sense of place in order to attract private investment and redevelopment of the area and create a community center that reflects and enhances the village character of the City of Lake Oswego, will be met. b. Clear and Objective Track 2 Alternative Applicability A development in the Downtown Redevelopment District(shown in Figure 50.05.004-0)that involves_ new dwellings or a structure for residential mixed use, multi family residential, or attached single family (three or moro :,ni housing that cr atcs new dwolling :,nib, may comply with this article in lieu of compliance with LOC 50.05.004.1 through 50.05.004.12. Item 2 [0]: Clarify that the Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) District Clear and Objective Standards may be applied equally to new dwellings—including detached single-family dwellings and middle housing. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design and dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing design standards—including design standards within overlay districts—for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects.This amendment clarifies that the clear and objective design standards within the DRD Overlay District may be applied equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, among other dwelling types. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 58/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.006 OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN ///// 4. REQUIRED OLD TOWN STYLE //// b. Old Town Style Structures shall be designed in one of the three following traditional American home building styles, as described and outlined below: Early 1900 Vernacular style (gable-front or gable front-and-wing), Craftsman, or Cape Cod. i. Early 1900 Vernacular Style //// (2) Required Design Elements Structures built according to the Early 1900 Vernacular style in Old Town shall provide the following design elements: //// (f) Windows: //// (iii) Single-family and middle housing structures shall provide at least 15%glazing for all street-facing building facades. Glazing may be provided in windows or primary entry doors. Item 3.1 [0]: Clarify that window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings in the Old Town Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design and dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing design standards—including design standards within overlay districts—for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects.This amendment clarifies that the window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style within the R-DD Overlay District may be applied equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 59/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (h) Front Entry: (i) Single-Family Residential and Middle Housing:A covered front porch measuring a minimum of six ft. deep and eight ft. wide, or one front entry that is recessed at least three ft. behind the front building facade. For cottage clusters,this standard applies to cottages that have no other structure between them and the front lot line. (ii) Multi-Family Residential_ and Townhouses: Ground floor residential entries shall provide a covered front entry measuring at least six ft. deep, or a front entry that is recessed at least three ft. behind the front building facade. Item 3.2 [O]: Clarify that front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. Item 4.1 [01: Modify front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style not to scale by the number of dwelling units in the R-DD Overlay District. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 require that cities apply the same clear and objective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone to middle housing. Design standards for middle housing may not "scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units, such as primary entrances." Division 46 further specifies that, "Design standards may scale with form-based attributes, including but not limited to floor area, street-facing façade, height, bulk, and scale." Because the front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style currently are written to apply differently to townhouses than to detached single-family dwellings, it is necessary to first clarify that the front entry standards for detached single-family dwelling will now apply to all middle housing types. Further, it is necessary to address that the existing front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style scale by the number of dwelling units, in that they require covering or recessing of each residential entry for townhouses.This amendment further clarifies that the standard can be met with the provision of just one recessed front entry for both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. //// ii. Cape Cod //// (2) Required Design Elements Structures built according to the Cape Cod style in Old Town shall provide the following required design elements: //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 60/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (b) Massing/Composition: Single-family residential and middle housing dwellings shall have square or rectangular plan (see Figure 50.05.006-C). Multi-family and townhouse structures shall provide additional building articulation, in accordance with standards in LOC 50.06.001.7.c.i and 50.06.001.7.c.ii. Item 3.3 [O]: Clarify that massing/composition standards for the Cape Cod Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. //// (f) Windows: (i) Double or single-hung sash windows with multi-paned glazing on one or both sashes required on all street-facing building facades. (ii) Single-family structures and middle housing shall provide at least 15%glazing for all street-facing building facades. Glazing may be provided in windows or primary entry doors. Item 3.4 [O]: Clarify that window standards for the Cape Cod Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. //// iii. Craftsman //// (2) Required Design Elements Structures built according to the Craftsman style in Old Town shall provide the following required design elements: (a) Building Height: Single-family residential dwellings and middle housing shall be a maximum of two stories. Item 3.5 [O]: Clarify that building height standards for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. (b) Massing/Composition: Single-family residential and middle housing dwellings shall have square, rectangular, L-shaped, or T-shaped plans (see Figure 50.05.006-E). Building projections illustrated in L-shaped and T-shaped plans in Figure 50.05.006-A may extend LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 61/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 from any location along the building facade. Porch projections may be appended to any of the above plan types. Multi-family structures shall provide additional building articulation in accordance with standards in LOC 50.06.001.7.c.i and 50.06.001.7.c.ii. Item 3.6 [O]: Clarify that massing/composition standards for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. //// (h) Front Entry: (i) Single-Family Residential and Middle Housing:A covered front porch (full or partial width of front elevation) measuring at least six ft. deep and at least half the width of the front facade. Porch roof shall be supported by tapered square, square, clustered square, or pedestal columns, measuring at least 5.5 in. in width at the narrowest point (clustered columns shall provide a minimum overall width of eight in.). For cottage clusters,this standard applies to cottages that have no other structure between them and the front lot line. (ii) Multi-Family Residential and Townhouses: Ground floor residential entries shall provide a covered front entry or a front entry(measuring at least six ft. deep) that is supported by tapered square, square, clustered square, or pedestal columns, or a front entry that is recessed at least three ft. behind the front building facade. Columns shall measure at least 5.5 in. in width at the narrowest point (clustered columns shall provide a minimum overall width of eight in.). Item 3.7 [O]: Clarify that front entry standards for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. Item 4.2 [O]: Modify front entry standards for the Craftsman Style to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 4.1 [0] above. //// (j) Multi-family and townhouse structures shall provide additional building articulation, in accordance with standards in LOC 50.06.001.6.c.i and 50.06.001.6.c.ii. Item 3.8 [0]: Clarify that building articulation standards in the required design elements for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 62/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// 9. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSE, ROWHOUSE AND MULTI Pk -FAMILY DWELLINGS a. Purpose The following standard ensures that new townhomes, rowhouses, and multi-family structures, due to their potential size, are visually reduced in scale and relate to nearby residential structures and neighborhood scale in general. b. Townhouse, rowhoLcoyand mMulti-family structures shall be designed in one of the Old Town styles, as described and illustrated in LOC 50.05.006.4.b. In addition, multi-family structures shall also be subject to the following requirements: i. Multi-family structures shall provide articulated building facades and rooflines in accordance with requirements in LOC 50.06.001.7.c.i, Building Articulation for Multi-Family and Residential Mixed Use Structures. ti. Townhoix.oc-and rowhousoall provide articulated building facades and rooflines in accordance with LOC 50.06.001.7.c.ii, Building Articulation for Townhouse/Rowhouse Structures. All surface parking areas shall provide a landscape buffer measuring a minimum of five ft. wide between the parking area and any public right-of-way or abutting property.The buffer should provide continuous landscaping measuring a minimum of three ft. high. All multi-family and duplex development must also comply with setback and landscaping requirements in LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii. +viii. Parking spaces may not be located within the front setback or between the building and any street frontage. Item 5 [0]: Clarify that the additional design standards for multiple-family dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District are not applicable to middle housing. This amendment is necessary in order to apply design standards within the R-DD Overlay District equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, per the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. The amendment also changes the title of this code section for consistency with the term "multi-family dwelling",which is defined and used elsewhere in the code. Because the term "multiple-family dwelling" is no longer used within the code, it was necessary to clarify the applicability of this section to "multi-family dwellings." ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 63/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.007 LAKE GROVE VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY DISTRICT ///// 3. APPLICABILITY //// c. Applicability by Type of Development i. New Construction/Redevelopment All standards of this overlay apply to new building(s) and alterations to existing buildings that do not meet the definition of"remodel" in subsection 3.c.ii of this section, and site improvements on any vacant or redeveloped site and to new building(s) and related site improvements on any partially developed or developed site. Exceptions: (1) For the construction or redevelopment of single-family and middle housing dwellings,— duplexes, and townhomcs,the pedestrian features standards of subsection 5.d of this section do not apply. //// ii. Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion,and Site Improvements The standards of this overlay apply to any remodeling, building expansion, or site improvement project on a partially developed or developed site, except as expressly provided below. For the purpose of this subsection, "remodel" means less than 50%of the exterior wall is removed or is no longer a necessary and integral structural component of the overall building. Elements of the exterior wall include columns, studs, or similar vertical load-bearing elements and associated footings. However, existing exterior walls supporting a roof that is being modified to accommodate a new floor level or roofline shall continue to be considered necessary and integral structural components, provided the existing wall elements remain in place and provide necessary structural support to the building upon completion of the roofline modifications. For buildings not principally supported by exterior bearing walls, "remodel" means less than 50%of the principal support structure, including columns, structural frames and other similar primary structural elements, is removed or no longer a necessary and integral structural component of the overall building. Alterations that are undertaken solely to bring an existing building into compliance with the Building Code are not counted towards the 50% measurement. //// (5) For remodels of single-family dwellings, duplexes and townhomcs,and middle housing, the pedestrian features standards of subsection 5.d of this section do not apply. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 64/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 6 [0]: Clarify that design standards apply to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings equally in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO). This amendment is necessary in order to apply design standards within the LGVCO equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, per the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. (6) Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection. provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. (7) For additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing. the standards of this section shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure. Existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted from the standards of this section. Item 7 [0]: Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to SFR that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay(LGVCO). Clarify that,for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing,the standards apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that large cities, "must allow for the development of Triplexes, Quadplexes,Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters, including those created through additions to or conversions of existing detached single-family dwellings." Division 46 further specifies that, "additions to, or conversions of, an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing" must be allowed, "provided that the addition or conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large City's development code." In order to comply with the above provisions,this amendment clarifies that remodels or conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, and are not classified as an expansion or addition, are exempted from standards that apply to remodeled buildings, building expansion, and site improvements in the LGCVO.The amendment further specifies that existing non-conforming portions of a structure are exempted from these standards, to reach compliance with Division 46. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 65/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.010 SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICTS ///// 4. GENERALLY APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR LANDS WITH RP DISTRICTS, RC DISTRICTS,AND HBA PROTECTION AREAS //// c. Density Transfer Lot density transfer shall be permitted for land divisions on residentially zoned lands subject to an RP district pursuant to this section, and on lands with an HBA protection area pursuant to this section and LOC 50.05.010.7. //// iii. Applicability by Housing Type Lot density transferred pursuant to this section may not be used to develop a triplex, quadplex, townhouse, or cottage cluster. Item 8 [0]: Limits the applicability of density transfer provisions in the Sensitive Lands Overlay to single-family dwellings and duplexes, as allowed under Division 46. Division 46 stipulates that cities, "may regulate middle housing to comply with protective measures (including plans, policies, and regulations) adopted and acknowledged pursuant to statewide land use planning goals."This includes provisions related to Statewide Planning Goal 5—Natural Resources,with specific language in Division 46 that requires cities to, "adopt land use regulations to protect water quality, aquatic habitat, and the habitat of threatened, endangered and sensitive species."The City has already taken significant measures to adopt such regulations within the Sensitive Lands Overlay District. With respect to regulations that protect natural resources, the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow cities to apply the same regulations to duplexes that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and to limit the development of middle housing other than duplexes within "significant resource sites identified and protected pursuant to Goal 5." This amendment clarifies that the density transfer provisions for the Sensitive Lands Overlay district will apply equally to detached single-family and duplex dwellings, but will not apply to other middle housing types, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 66/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 g. Mitigation Requirements //// ix. Bonding Period //// (4) Property owners of individual tax lots that are lots of record which are zoned for single-family residential or middle housing use, are not large enough to be further divided, and were in existence prior to the date this section becomes effective shall be exempt from these bonding requirements. Item 9 [0]: Modify the bonding period standards for the Sensitive Lands Overlay District to apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. This amendment is necessary in order to apply boding period standards within the Sensitive Lands Overlay District equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, per the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. ///// 6. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO RP DISTRICTS a. Resource Protection (RP) District Environmental Review Standards;Applicability and Purpose In addition to compliance with LOC 50.07.004.8.c and 50.07.004.8.d and LOC 50.05.010.4.b and 50.05.010.4.c, applicants for development that is subject to environmental review on property containing an RP district shall comply with the standards contained in LOC 50.05.010.6.b through 50.05.010.6.d, in order to: i. Prohibit new development within an RP district following delineation of the resource or resources, except as provided in this section. In the event that development is allowed within an RP district,the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of or damage to the RP resource pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.g; ii. Ensure that new development and alterations are compatible with and maintain the total land area and the functions and values of resources designated as RP; Iiii. Allow for development opportunities for at least one single-family home or duplex, pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.6.d and the applicable mitigation criteria of LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.g. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 67/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 10 [0]:Allow for duplex development opportunities within the Resource Protection (RP) District, but not opportunities for the development of other middle housing types, as permitted under Division 46. As mentioned above under Item 8 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow cities to apply the same regulations to duplexes that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and to limit the development of middle housing other than duplexes within "significant resource sites identified and protected pursuant to Goal 5." This amendment clarifies that development opportunities within the RP District will apply equally to detached single-family and duplex dwellings, but will not apply to other middle housing types, pursuant to these minimum compliance provisions. //// d. Exceptions Where the RP District Prohibits All Reasonable Development Opportunities i. When a delineated RP district occupies most or all of a lot in any residential district,the property owner shall be permitted development on the parcel of a single-family dwelling, duplex, or the equivalent; "equivalent" shall be one or more dwellings which in total do not exceed the I maximum lot coverage and floor area allowed for one single-family or duplex dwelling based on the minimum lot area of the underlying zone. In approving more than one dwelling the reviewing body shall find that the avoid, minimize, mitigate requirements of this section are met, and the development will have no greater impact to water quality, slope stability, erosion, or wildlife habitat than would occur with one dwelling constructed with the maximum allowed floor area based on the minimum lot area of the underlying zone.All other applicable City codes and development standards shall be complied with, and the mitigation criteria of LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.g shall also be applicable. Item 11 [O]:Allow for duplex development opportunities on sites otherwise encumbered by an RP District, but not opportunities for the development of other middle housing types, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. As mentioned above under Item 8 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow cities to apply the same regulations to duplexes that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and to limit the development of middle housing other than duplexes within "significant resource sites identified and protected pursuant to Goal 5." This amendment clarifies that opportunities for development on sites otherwise encumbered by an RP District within the RP District will apply equally to detached single-family and duplex dwellings, but will not apply to other middle housing types, pursuant to these minimum compliance provisions. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 68/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.001 BUILDING DESIGN 1. APPLICABILITY This section is applicable as follows: TABLE 50.0. i i - • I ► ■ •DS APPLICABILITY /A/=Applicable/blank/= Not Applicable Additional Base District R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 Standards • Structure 50.05.006, Design— Residential A A A A A [1] Old Town Zones Neighborhood 50.06.001.2 Design Garage 50.05.006, Appearance Old Town and Location A A A A A Neighborhood 50.06.001.4 Design Zone Additional Standards A 50.06.001.3 (R-6) Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Not Located A [2][3] in FMU Zone Standards for Approval 50.06.001.5 Development Located in FMU Zone Standards for A [4] Approval 50.06.001.6 Notes: [1] Structure Design standards only apply to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, zcro lot line dwellings,duplexes, and structures that are accessory to these development types (see LOC 50.06.001.2.a). [2] Ministerial development: development involving mechanical equipment, limited LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 69/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.06.001-1: BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABILITY /A/=Applicable/blank/= Not Applicable Additional Base District R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 Standards to LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening). [3] Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), multi-family residential, townhouses attached single-family (three or more units) residential development, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone.This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development. [4] Development involving either mechanical equipment, or development involving structures, or both, including new development and exterior modifications, in the FMU zone. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 70/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 1.1 [R]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Building Design Standards Applicability Table. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. Under the City's current system, single-family development is classified as a Ministerial decision, and the development of middle housing types other than duplexes is classified as a Minor Development decision and subject to additional staff review. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's review procedures must be amended to treat middle housing the same as single-family housing. City Council directed staff to develop code amendments that would classify the development of a single triplex, quadplex,townhouse project, and cottage cluster as a ministerial decision in order to comply with the bill. As a result of this change,the development of a triplex, quadplex, or cottage cluster will generally not require a Pre-Application Conference, neighborhood meeting, public notice, or a public hearing —as these are not required for single-family residential development.The existing ministerial procedure utilized for the review of single-family and duplex dwelling building permit applications will now be applied to triplex, quadplex, or cottage cluster applications.This review is primarily managed by the Building Department, but also includes review by staff from the Planning, Engineering, and Fire Departments to ensure compliance with applicable standards. Townhouse development that requires a land division will be still considered a minor development decision (even for expedited middle housing land divisions pursuant to Senate Bill 458). However, townhouses allowed under HB 2001 will no longer be subject to the additional design review approval for compliance with the standards in LOC 50.06.001.5, as is currently required. Item 17.1 [D]: Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones within the Building Design Standards Applicability Table. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided general direction to staff to apply the existing building design standards for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects. With respect to cottage clusters, Division 46 requires that cities apply design standards that are less restrictive than those in the Model Code, and no more restrictive than the design standards that apply to single-family detached homes. In addition to the use-specific standards for cottage clusters, which contain standards specific to parking, landscaping, orientation, and other design elements, City Council directed staff to apply any design standards that apply to detached single-family housing to cottage cluster dwellings as long as they do not conflict with the Model Code. This amendment clarifies that the general building design standards will also apply to all middle housing types, as permitted pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 71/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 2. STRUCTURE DESIGN—RESIDENTIAL ZONES a. Applicability i. In the R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 zones, this subsection applies only to the following types of development: (1) Detached single-family dwellings; (2) Zero lot line dwellingsMiddle housing;, and {3) Cb:plcxcs; and(43) Structures that are accessory to these development types listed above. Item 17.2 [D]:Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones within the applicability standards for Structure Design—Residential Zones. See Item 17.1 [D], above. ii. This subsection is applicable to all structures in any other base residential districts, except R-W and R-DD. iii. Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection, provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. iv. For additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, this subsection (a) shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure. Existing non-conforming portions of the structure to remain in place are exempted from the standards of this subsection. Item 18 [D]: Clarify that remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. As mentioned above under Item 7 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that large cities, "must allow for the development of Triplexes, Quadplexes,Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters, including those created through additions to or conversions of existing detached single-family dwellings." Division 46 further specifies that, "additions to, or conversions of, an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing" must be allowed, "provided that the addition or conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large City's development code." In order to comply with the above provisions,this amendment clarifies that remodels and conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, and are not classified as an expansion or addition, are exempted from the general building design standards. The amendment further specifies that existing non-conforming portions of a structure are exempted from the design standards, in order to reach compliance with Division 46. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 72/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// 3. R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS a. Roof Design i. The minimum roof pitch for primary roof forms of a single-family or middle housing dwelling shall be 6:12. Shed type and flat roofs are not permitted as primary roof forms on single-family or middle housing dwellings. Secondary roof forms, such as sunrooms, balconies, dormers, porticos, or bays, may be flat or shed roof types. See Figure 50.06.001-J: Identification of Primary and Secondary Roofs. Item 19.1 [D]: Clarify that the Roof Design standards in the R-6 Zone apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided general direction to staff to apply the existing building design standards for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects; and to apply any design standards that apply to detached single-family housing to cottage cluster dwellings as long as they do not conflict with the Model Code. This amendment clarifies that the roof design standards in the R-6 Zone will also apply to all middle housing types, as permitted pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 73/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.06.001-J: Identification of Primary and Secondary Roofs PRIMARY • 1 SECONDARY 4- NIS 1110 1111 4\s- .1 .411 ii. Roof pitch on an accessory structure shall either match the pitch of the primary structure or be a minimum pitch of 6:12. b. Front Porch Required i. All new primary structuresdwcllings shall include a covered front porch at an tha rrc�n entry_ When applied to cottage clusters,this standard applies to cottages for which there are no other structures between it and the front lot line. huaThe porch shall have a minimum depth of six ft. and a minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. iii. On corner lots,the covered front porch and main entry shall be provided on the narrow street frontage. On lots with more than two street frontages,the front porch and main entry shall be provided on the front yard providing the full depth required by the zone, as determined by LOC 50.04.003.6. The covered front porch shall be open and unobstructed by structures on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street, except for porch supports and railings. Porch supports shall be provided on the front porch and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material with the appearance of wood or masonry. Railings shall not exceed 44 inches in height or the minimum height required by the building code,whichever is greater. iv. A pedestrian front wiry-path shall provide direct access from the front porch to the public street/sidewalk. On corner lots,the front cntrypedestrian path shall connect to the public street/sidewalk on the narrow street frontage. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 74/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 20 [D]: Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units. As mentioned above under Item 4 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 require that cities apply the same clear and objective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone to middle housing. Design standards for middle housing may not "scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units, such as primary entrances." Division 46 further specifies that, "Design standards may scale with form-based attributes, including but not limited to floor area, street-facing facade, height, bulk, and scale." Because the front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone currently are written to require front porches for every dwelling unit, it is necessary to modify the standard to no longer apply on a per-dwelling basis.This amendment specifies that the front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone will now require a covered front porch in front of every primary entrance into to a living area that faces a street,which is permitted under Division 46 since it does not scale the applicability of the standard by the number of dwelling units. Staff further recommends revisiting front porch standards in the R-6 Zone at a later date, including engaging in appropriate public outreach with the First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association,to ensure that the standards do not result in overly long or otherwise undesirable front porch design outcomes. //// c. Alleys Alleys shall be surfaced in the following manner: i. Alleys that serve single-family or middle housing residences only shall be paved with gravel or permeable material. I ii. Alleys that serve commercial or;multi-family dwelling,townhouse, rowhouse, or duplex, development, major public facilities structures, or institutional uses shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. Item 21 [D]: Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that alley surfacing standards for other middle housing types are applied differently for the purposes of this standard. Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone are considered a public works standard, in this case they must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.This amendment clarifies that the alley surfacing standards for single-family dwellings apply to duplexes, and that different standards apply to other middle housing types. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 75/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// 4. GARAGE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION a. R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Residential Zones The following standards for garage appearance and location shall be applicable: i. Applicability Limited to Dwelling Type in the R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5 Zones. The garage appearance and location standards of this section shall apply to the following types of development: (1) Detached single-family dwellings; and (2) Zero lot linc dwcllings Middle housing. d {3) Duplcxcsi. Item 22.1 [D]: Clarify that garage appearance and location standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided general direction to staff to apply the existing building design standards for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects; and to apply any design standards that apply to detached single-family housing to cottage cluster dwellings as long as they do not conflict with the Model Code. This amendment clarifies that garage appearance and location standards will also apply to all middle housing types, as permitted pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. ii. Garage Wall Facing Street When a garage has wall(s) other than the wall containing the garage opening facing a street,these wall(s) shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10%of the garage wall. Item 33 [D]: Clarify that the garage wall facing street standard does not apply to garage walls containing the garage opening, as these are now addressed within the new garage appearance and location standards. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards, discussed in Item 23.2 [D], below. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 76/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iii. Garage Design Requirements Due to Location The standards in subsection 4.a.iv of this section shall not apply in any one of the following circumstances: (1) The garage is 20 ft. or more back from: (a) The point of the dwelling closest to the front lot line, and (b) If applicable,the point of the dwelling closest to the street side yard line; (2) The garage is side-loading; (3) The garage is rear-loading; (4) The lot is a steeply sloped lot; 45) The width of a parcel is Isrr than SO ft.; _or (651 The garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 ft.from the public right-of-way. Item 24 [D]:Apply garage appearance and location standards to parcels less than 50 feet in width. While staff was given direction to apply the same design standards that currently apply to detached single-family dwellings to middle housing, City Council also acknowledged that some of these standards needed to be modified to apply to middle housing in order to ensure consistency with the City's existing neighborhood character, livability, and sense of place. In particular, a concern was expressed that more visually-prominent garages could be a potential design outcome of allowing middle housing given that a triplex, quadplex, or townhome building is likely to be built with more garage stalls than a single-family house or duplex. In order to discourage overly prominent garages that are incompatible with community character, City Council directed staff to enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways. The existing code exempts lots less than 50 feet in width from being subject to the garage standards. Because townhouses will commonly be permitted on lots of less than 50 feet in width, it is necessary to remove the exemption to the standards for front-facing garages for lots less than 50 feet in width to ensure they are applicable to townhouses. City Council concurred with staff's recommendation to draft code amendments that would apply standards to garages on lots that are narrower than 50 feet. Staff notes that,while this amendment is intended to address garages for middle housing dwellings, it will also apply to detached single-family dwellings. See Item 23.2 [D], below,for more on the proposed amendments to garage appearance and location standards. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 77/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.06.001-L:Garage Design Requirements . i I ,,. .,7 r) ft ink eg a II Dili ,•_ : s 0utdtor tying aria ', woad w stone $ Al operable gate Fencing I 'k-- )---1\ 1 ri t II II 1 i 1 F I outdoor living area wood or stone Fencing ILA operable gate LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 78/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iv. Garage Location and Appearance St ndards The garage shall comply with subsections 4.a.iv(1)through (3) of this section: (1) Maximum Garage Width (a) For lots with a width of 50 ft. or more, garage openings shall not occupy more than 60%of the width of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. (b) For lots with a width of less than 50 ft.,garage openings may occupy up to 75%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling and garage when the following criteria are satisfied: (i) The total combined width of all garage openings does not exceed 36 ft.: (ii) Living area is provided above the garage.The front facade of the living area must have fenestration that is not less than 20%of the facade: and (iii) The garage location and appearance standards in Table 50.06.001-2, below. TABLE 50.06.001-2: GARAGE LOCATION AND APPEARANCE STANDARDS Width of Garage as Percent of Front Minimum Garage Setback Minimum Number of Garage Facade 50.06.001.4.a.iv.2 Appearance Standards 50.06.001.4.a.iv.3 Less than 30% None 2 30%to 60% 2 feet 3 60%to 75% 4 feet 4 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 79/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 23.2 [D]: Modify garage width standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade. Remove existing additional garage appearance standards for consistency with the new garage appearance section, below, where many of the same standards have been repeated. Modify Figure 50.06.001-L: Garage Design Requirements to reflect that an 88-foot minimum lot width is no longer required for the garage location and appearance standards to apply. While staff was given direction to apply the same design standards that currently apply to detached single-family dwellings to middle housing, City Council also acknowledged that some of these standards needed to be modified to apply to middle housing in order to ensure consistency with the City's existing neighborhood character, livability, and sense of place. In particular, a concern was expressed that more visually-prominent garages could be a potential design outcome of allowing middle housing given that a triplex, quadplex, or townhome building is likely to be built with more garage stalls than a single-family house or duplex. In order to discourage overly prominent garages that are incompatible with community character, City Council directed staff to enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways. The Planning Commission explored options available within the existing design standards to minimize the appearance of a garage; the Commission directed staff to draft code that would achieve the following: • Require garage recessing, as opposed to simply offering it as one available option for compliance; • Allow exceptions to increase the width of a garage to 75%only for lots that are narrower than 50 feet, and continue to limit the overall width of garages to less than 60%of the width of the front façade for lots wider than 50 feet; In order to further minimize the prominence of garages in the context of middle housing while balancing the need for flexibility,the Commission also directed staff to apply existing garage design standards differently based on the width of the garage as a percentage of the front façade.The proposed approach scales these standards based on the width of the garage relative to the facade; the key concept is that if the garage makes up a larger portion of the front façade,then more techniques and treatments must be used to minimize the appearance of the garage from the street. The new table above (Table 50.06.001-2) is intended to implement this concept while also incorporating other amendments to garage appearance and location standards described above. Staff notes that,while this amendment is intended to address garages for middle housing dwellings, it will also apply to detached single-family dwellings. (12) Dw^1°ng S hall Q^Clo cr to the StFeetMinimum Garage Offset from Dwelling (a) If the width of the garage is less than 30%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling,then Thethe garage shall not be located closer to the street than the dwelling. For the purpose of meeting this subsection, the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 80/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 space, other than any habitable space above the garage, shall be located closer to the street than the garage door. Habitable space above a garage shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling projects involving homes built prior to August 2004 in the R-5, R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones, and July 1, 2010, in the R-0, R-2, and R-3 zones. (b) If the width of the garage exceeds 30%of the width of the front facade of the building, then the garage must set back further from the front lot line than the dwelling.The minimum additional garage setback is provided in Table 50.06.001-2. Item 23.1 [D]: Modify garage setback standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. See Item 23.2 [D], above. _{2) Garage Width 4a) Tho garage elevati:n zhall not occupy more than 60%of the width of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage; or (b) For duplexes and zero lot line dwrllin�, ;ar gos may occupy up to 75%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling and garage when the following criteria arc satisfied: Tho lot width of the lot upon which the duplex is located or the combined total lot width for the two lots upon which the zero lot line dwellings arc located is less than 88 ft.; and(ii) Tho total combined width of iI garage doors does not exceed 36 ft.; and Living area is provided above the garage.The front facade of the living area •rnLxt have fenestration that nat-4ccc than 20%of the facade; and _(iv) One or more of the following is provided: 1, Porgolas or trslli c o provided acre c the a'ntiro front of the garage; or 2. A covered porch occupies at least 25%of the facade; or 3. nn enclosed (.,,+door living� s located bet..wen the Front of the house,the garage, ani thi Ic.410ic right of way.The enclosure shall consist of wood, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing (excluding concrete block) and include an operable entryway getis shown in Figure 50.06.001 L: CLN-�u Dosign Requirements; and LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 81/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 23.2 [D]: Modify garage width standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. This amendment removes the existing garage width standards for consistency with the new garage appearance section, above,where many of the same garage width standards have been repeated. See Item 23.2 [D], above. (c) If the garages for the units are adjacent to one another,the horizontal planes of the garage doors shall be offset no less than two ft. (34) Garage Appearance Standards Garages shall comply with at least two a minimum number of the following appearance standards intended to minimize the appearance of the garage. The minimum number of appearance standards that must be met is provided in Table 50.06.001-2.{e) Sot the garage an additional two ft. further from the front property line than the facade of the dwelling; (ha) Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 sq. ft. each,for each parking stall. (b) Provide individual garage doors that do not exceed 50%of the width of the combined facade of the dwellings and garages, or in the case of duplexes and zero lot line dwellings, 50%of the width of the combined facade of the dwellings and garages. 0 back at least two ft.further from the front property line Oar.tbtc facade of the other garage opening; (b) Provide separate garage openings offset from one another by at least two ft horizontally. cc) Provide windows on each garage door that make up a minimum of 15%of the area of the door. (d) Provide a decorative trellis, pergola,or other feature that will provide a shadow line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed.The feature shall be provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s) and shall be at least 12 in. deep and six ft. tall. (d) Provide earace opcnincs offset from one another by at least two ft horizontal ly ter. {e) Provide a covered porch that occupies at least 25%of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. {f) Provide a patio with a surrounding screening wall at a height of 4 ft. located between the front of the house,the garage, and the public right-of-way.The enclosure shall consist of wood, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 82/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (excluding concrete block)and include an operable entryway gate as shown in Figure 50.06.001-L: Garage Design Requirements. Item 23.3 [D]: Modify garage appearance standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards, discussed in Item 23.2 [D], above. v. Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks In any instance where a garage or a set of adjacent garages is designed to park three or more vehicles, only the garage openings for the first two vehicles may occupy the same building plane. Each additional building plane with a garage opening shall be set back by a minimum of two ft. from the previous garage building plane. Exceptions: (1) The lot is a steeply sloped lot; (2) The width of a parcel is less than 50 ft.; or (3) The garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 ft. from the public right-of-way. b. R-6 Residential Zones In addition to compliance with the accessory structure setback requirements in LOC 50.04.001.2, a garage shall comply with the following requirements: i. Access (1) Garages shall be accessed from an alley, if available. (2) If a property is located on a corner lot, garages may also be accessed from the street that abuts the side of the primary dwelling when the following criteria are met: (a) The garage is located between the primary structure and the alley, if an alley abuts the lot; (b) The garage is set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the side street property line; and (c) The garage is set back a minimum of two ft. from a line extended from the side elevation of the primary dwelling to the rear lot line, and behind the primary structure. See Figure 50.06.001-M: Front Porch and Garage Measurements. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 83/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.06.001-M: Front Porch and Garage Measurements AVENUE f 5 PLC RIp1TOFWAY 15 t s NEW lllKIil OFYNU st rn frua I 7_5'• > : mH ii. Garage Wall Facing Street When a garage has wall(s) facing a street other than the wall containing the garage opening, these wall(s) shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10%of the garage wall. iii. LocatienGarage Width (1) For interior lots, garages shall be located so that the garage is set back a minimum of 15 ft. behind the front yard setback line of the house (excluding a porch). See Figure 50.06.001-M: Front Porch and Garage Measurements. (2) Where no alley access is available,the garage shall comply with the following stand ardscithcr: (a) For lots with a width of 50 ft. or more,the garage opening shall not°Occupy+ temore than 60%of the width of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. (b) For lots with a width of less than 50 ft.zero lot line dwellings, garages may either comply with r' bccction 4.b.ii(1) of this section or may occupy up to 75%of the width of the combined front facade of the dwelling and garage when the following criteria are satisfied: {i) The combined total lot width for the two lots upon which the zero lot line dwslling arc located is Lev.than F.F.ft.; and (ii) The total combined width of all garage doors does not exceed 36 ft.; and LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 84/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (iii) Living area is provided above the garage.The front facade of the living area must have fenestration that is not less than 20%of the facade a+id. {iv) One or more of the following c provided: {A) Pergolas or trclli-Azc ars avidcd av eac thz ontire front of the garage, or {B) A covered porch that occupies at I ast 25% of the facade. Item 23.5 [D]: Modify garage location standards in the R-6 Zone to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards within the R-6 Zone. See Item 23.2 [D], above. (c) If the garages for the units are adjacent to one another,the horizontal planes of the garage doors shall be offset no less than two ft. iii. Garage Wall Facing Street When a go cs wa"(s) facing a street oth then thy, wall c7ntcinin„the garage opvnir>;, thi,4;,E wall(z) c�'� II h ve mew a than e\no plane er r,\'x-A include fenestration equal to at I ast 10%of the garage wall. iv. Garage Location and Appearance (1) Minimum Garage Offset from Dwelling (a) If the width of the garage is less than 30%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling, then the garage shall not be located closer to the street than the dwelling. For the purpose of meeting this subsection,the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable space, other than any habitable space above the garage, shall be located closer to the street than the garage door. Habitable space above a garage shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling proiects involving homes built prior to [insert month and year of the effective date of this Ord.l. (b) If the width of the garage exceeds 30%of the width of the front facade of the building, then the garage must set back further from the front lot line than the dwelling. The minimum additional garage setback is provided in Table 50.06.001-2. Item 23.7 [D]: Modify garage setback standards in the R-6 Zone to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards within the R-6 Zone. See Item 23.2 [D], above. (2) Garage Appearance Standards LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 85/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Garages shall comply with a minimum number of the following appearance standards intended to minimize the appearance of the garage.The minimum number of appearance standards that must be met is provided in Table 50.06.001-2. Ja) Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 so. ft. each,for each parking stall. Jb) Provide separate garage openings offset from one another by at least two ft horizontally. Jc) Provide windows on each garage door that make up a minimum of 15%of the area of the door. Jd) Provide a decorative trellis, pergola, or other feature that will provide a shadow line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed.The feature shall be Provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s) and shall be at least 12 in. deep and six ft. tall. f e) Provide a covered porch that occupies at least 25%of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. Jf) Provide a patio with a surrounding screening wall at a height of 4 ft. located between the front of the house,the garage, and the public right-of-way.The enclosure shall consist of wood, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing (excluding concrete block)and include an operable entryway gate as shown in Figure 50.06.001-L: Garage Design Requirements. Item 23.8 [D]: Modify garage appearance standards in the R-6 Zone to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards within the R-6 Zone. See Item 23.2 [D], above. 5. COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT NOT LOCATED IN THE FMU ZONE,AND MINOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-DD ZONE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Applicability This standard is applicable in all zones except the FMU zone to: i. Ministerial development: development involving mechanical equipment, limited to LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening); and ii. Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), private recreational use, multi-family residential, townhousesattachcd single family (three or more units)- LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 86/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 residcntial dcvclopmcnt, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone.This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3). //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 87/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.002 PARKING //// 2. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Vehicle Parking //// ii. Number of Required Parking Spaces The number of required parking spaces under this Article shall be determined by either the Numerical Method (subsection 2.a.ii(1) of this section) or the Parking Study Method (subsection 2.a.ii(2) of this section). (1) Numerical Method Refer to Tables 50.06.002-1, 50.06.002-3 and 50.06.002-4 to determine the number of parking spaces required.The minimum number of parking spaces specified for each type of use shall include reductions to parking requirements pursuant to subsection 2.a.v(1) of this section and Table 50.06.002-3. It-ABLE 50.06.002-1: NUMERICAL METHOD OF DETERMINING MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Determine: Method of Determining: Floor Area Amount From Table 50.06.002-3, determine if floor area is used to calculate the number of parking spaces required for the use(s). (Floor Area per Parking Space) Number of Employees Determine number of full-time,temporary, part-time and contract employees, or independent contractors, if employee count is used in Table 50.06.002-3 to calculate the number of parking spaces required. (Employee Per Space amount) Gross Parking Requirement 1. Multiply the adjusted Floor Area Amount by the Floor Area per Parking Space. 2. Multiply the Number of Employees by the Employee Per Space amount. 3.Add the results of(1) and (2) above together. Reductions 1. See Table 50.06.002-4 for possible reductions. 2.Apply reduction percentages to Gross LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 88/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 r TABLE 50.06.002-1: NUMERICAL METHOD OF DETERMINING MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED J Determine: Method of Determining: Parking Requirement. Mixed Uses The total requirements for mixed uses on a site shall be the sum for the various uses computed separately. Rounding Any fractional space amount determined following the application of Reductions and Mixed Uses above shall be rounded up to the next highest whole space. Minimum Parking Requirement The minimum parking requirement is the "rounded" number above. //// Type of Use Parking Space Required [1] //// (A) RESIDENTIAL 1. Single-family dwelling and middle housineduplcx 1 space per dwelling unit 2.Accessory dwelling unit None (ORS 197.312(5)(b)) 3. Multi-family 25%of the required parking for multi-family use shall be located to provide for common or visitor use i. Studio/efficiency 1 space per unit ii. 1 bedroom 1.25 spaces per unit iii. 2 or more bedrooms 1.5 spaces per unit 4. Rooming and boarding house; bed and breakfast 1 space per each guest room plus 1 for owner //// [1] Gross floor area does not include any parking area. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 89/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 25 [D]: Modify general off-street parking requirements to permit one space per unit for middle housing. The minimum compliance provisions in Division 46 do not allow cities to require more than one parking space per dwelling unit for middle housing.This amendment clarifies that the existing off-street parking requirement for detached single-family dwellings and duplexes of one off-street parking space per dwelling unit will also apply to middle housing, in order to comply with Division 46. //// vi. Parking Dimensions //// (2) The minimum dimension to meet single-family and middle housing residential parking space requirements shall be eight ft. six in.wide and 18 ft. six in. long for each space. Item 26 [D]: Modify parking dimensions standards to apply equally to single-family and middle housing. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 90/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.003 CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY 1. ACCESS/ACCESS LANES(FLAG LOTS) //// d. Standards for Access Lanes Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: i. Twenty-ft.-wide easement. ii. Access to two to three dwelling unitslots—12 ft. of pavement with a four-ft. shoulder on each side. Item 30.1 (D]: Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots with the Standards for Access Lanes, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code.This also entails removing the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane. Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the provision of flag lots and an access lane can be provided as an exception to street frontage requirements, which relates to a public works standard, in this case the flag lot and access lane standards must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.They do not, however, need to apply to other middle housing types. This amendment removes the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that may be served by an access lane, and replaces it with a limitation of two to three lots, in order to ensure compliance with Division 46. Item 31 [D], below,further specifies that access lanes can only serve lots improved with detached single-family or duplex dwellings. iii. One standard "on-lane" parking space shall be provided for each flag lot served by an access lane.This parking space may be used to meet minimum off-street parking requirements for detached single-family and duplex dwellings on flag lots served by the access lane. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 91/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 27 [D]: Specify that on-lane parking spaces located on an access lane may be used to meet minimum parking requirements for flag lots served by the access lane. The minimum compliance provisions in Division 46 do not allow cities to require more than one parking space per dwelling unit for middle housing.This amendment clarifies that any"on-lane" parking spaces required along the access lane for each flag lot served by an access lane must also be allowed to count towards the minimum parking requirements for any dwellings served by the access lane. While this amendment is necessary in order to reach compliance with Division 46, staff notes that the requirement for an "on-lane" parking space for all flag lots may be worth renewed consideration in the future. Considering that the applicability of the standard is now modified,the requirement may now provide an incentive for more cars to be parked along the access lane—as opposed to on an individual lot. iv. Access lanes shall only serve lots improved with detached single-family or duplex dwellings. Item 31 [D]: Specify that duplexes must be permitted on flag lots served by an access lane, but not other middle housing types. As discussed above under Item 30 [D], Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the provision of flag lots and an access lane can be provided as an exception to street frontage requirements,which relates to a public works standard, in this case the flag lot and access lane standards must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.They do not, however, need to apply to other middle housing types. Consistent with these minimum compliance provisions,this amendment specifies that access lanes can only serve lots improved with detached single-family or duplex dwellings. //// 2. ON-SITE CIRCULATION—DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE ACCESS ROADS a. Applicability This section is applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. Increased use shall be defined as an increase in trip generation or parking requirement. b. Standards for Approval i. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 92/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (5) The maximum width of a driveway approach, measured where the edges of the driveway meet the right-of-way, shall be governed as follows: (a) Single-family residential or middle housing dwelling with garage door(s)facing the street: 12 ft. per garage or carport stall, or surface parking space, but not to exceed 30 ft. (b) Single-family residential or middle housing dwelling with side-loading garage: 24 ft. Item 22.2 [D]: Clarify that driveway width limitations apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings in applicable zones. See Item 22.1 [D], above. (c) All other uses: 24 ft. unless otherwise justified by the recommendations of a traffic study. (6) The driveway approach shall be within the right-of-way bounded by the extension of the lot's side or street side lot lines. ii. Driveway Widths Driveways shall conform to the minimum width requirements of LOC 15.06.610 (Oregon Fire Code Adopted) and LOC 50.06.002, Parking. For lots less than 50 ft. wide, driveways on the lot may be no wider than the garage opening accessed from the driveway. Item 28 [D]: Limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width to no wider than the associated garage opening. Applying existing driveway standards to a townhouse project could inadvertently allow driveway approaches that are wider than the width of the garage(s) for a townhouse unit.To address this issue, City Council directed staff to place a limit on the width of driveways on smaller lots; agreeing with staff's recommendation to amend the driveway standards to limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width to no wider than the associated garage opening. iii. Driveway Grades (1) The maximum grade of a driveway serving one single family structure shall be 20%. If the grade exceeds S ,Jhon the residenco mutt ao provided with alternative methods for fire suppression, i.o.,-r rinkloring.shall comply with LOC 15.06.610 (Oregon Fire Code Adopted). _(-2) Tho maximum grade of a driveway for all other 15%. (23) For all uses except single-family or middle housing dwellings structures of fc'.ir ►initc 9-p less,there shall be a landing area where a driveway used by multiple drivers meets the public street.The landing area shall be a minimum of 25 ft. long and shall have a maximum grade of 5%.The length and grade of the landing area described in this subsection presupposes that the abutting street has been fully improved to its ultimate anticipated width. If a driveway is proposed on a street that is not fully improved, and the development proposal is anticipated to LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 93/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 proceed prior to the improvement of the street,the City Engineer shall determine the location and grade of the future street improvement and the applicant shall design the driveway and site grading so that this standard will not be compromised when the street is improved in the future. Item 22.3 [D]: Clarify that driveway grades standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings in applicable zones. This is required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// c. Standards for Construction //// vi. All driveways shall be paved with a material that does not generate dust. Hard pavement is required except in the following circumstances: (1) Low-use driveways, such as one serving a parking area for recreational vehicles, boat trailers, or access to a storage building or storage area. (2) Where a driveway grade changes less than 10%from the street to the parking area serving a single-family residence or duplex. Item 29 [D]:Apply the exception from the hard pavement requirement for driveways equally to duplexes and single-family residences. As discussed above under Item 30 [D], Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the exception from the hard pavement requirement for driveways can be considered an exception from a public works standard, in this case the hard pavement requirement for driveways must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.The requirement does not, however, need to apply to other middle housing types. Consistent with these minimum compliance provisions,this amendment specifies that the hard pavement requirement for driveways applies equally to duplexes and single-family residences //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 94/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 3. ON-SITE CIRCULATION—BIKEWAYS,WALKWAY,AND ACCESSWAYS a. Applicability This section is applicable to all subdivisions and to all minor and major development involving the construction of a new structure other than a detached single-family dwelling, duplex, middle housing dwelling„ or accessory structures.This section is also applicable to modifications which increase the square footage of commercial, industrial, public use or institutional buildings by more than 10%. For the purposes of this section, an "existing building" is a building as it exists on February 19, 1998. Item 19.2 [D]: Clarify that standards for On-Site Circulation—Bikeways, Walkway, and Accessways apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. //// 4. STREET CONNECTIVITY a. Applicability This section is applicable to: i. Any development that results in the construction of a street; or ii. A land division that: (1) Is located on a parcel or parcels of vacant or redevelopable land of 1.75 acres or more, or (2) Abuts a parcel upon which there is a street that has been "stubbed"to the proposed development site. iii. Construction of a detached single-family dwelling,duplex, middle housing dwelling, zero lot line dwelling, multi-family dwelling, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public function structure that: (1) Is located on a parcel or parcels of vacant or redevelopable land of 1.75 acres or more, or (2) Abuts a parcel upon which there is a street that has been "stubbed"to the proposed development site. This section is not applicable to development or construction in the FMU zone. Item 19.3 [D]: Clarify that standards for Street Connectivity apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 95/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// c. Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street //// v. Access lanes may be used to serve up to three dwelling unitslots. Item 30.2 [D]: Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots in the Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code.This also entails removing the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane. See Item 30.1 [D], above. 5. TRANSIT SYSTEM a. Applicability This standard is applicable to all new subdivisions, planned developments, multi-family residential developments of four unit, or more, and new commercial, institutional and industrial developments, and major public facility structures located on a transit street or within one-quarter mile of a transit street. Item 19.4 [D]: Clarify that Transit System standards do not apply to either detached single-family or middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 96/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.004 SITE DESIGN //// c. Standards for Installation and Construction //// iii. Except for single-family residential dwellings and middle housing developments that require street trees, all planting shall have an irrigation system installed to meet standards of Turf Irrigation Manual, current edition, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the reviewing authority that such system is not necessary. Item 19.5 [D]: Clarify that standards for the installation and construction of site design elements apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 97/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.007 SOLAR ACCESS 1. SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT //// b. Applicability The solar design standard in LOC 50.06.007.1.c shall apply to subdivision applications that create lots intended for single-family detached dwellings or middle housing dwellings in any zone, except to the extent the reviewing authority finds that the applicant has shown one or more of the conditions listed in LOC 50.04.004.1, Exemptions from Solar Design Standard, and LOC 50.04.004.2,Adjustments to Solar Design Standard, exist and exemptions or adjustments provided for therein are warranted. Item 19.6 [D]: Clarify that solar access standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 98/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.07.003 REVIEW PROCEDURES ///// 13. MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS a. Ministerial Development Classification i. Requirements of Ministerial Decisions A ministerial development is a development which requires a permit or review from the City where the decision: (1) Is made pursuant to land use standards which do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment; (2) Approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards; or (3) Determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations. ii. Ministerial Development Types (1) Exterior modification of single-family detached dwellings (including exterior modifications that reduce setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.04.003.3.c), accessory dwelling units,-a- single duplex on a lots or zero lot line dwellings, or middle housing, or modification of an accessory structure in the R-DD zone. (2) Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, middle housing,o single duplex on a lot, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: Item 12.2 [G]: Remove code references to "dwelling, zero lot line"within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 12.1 [G], above. Item 1.2 ER]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 1.1 [R], above. (a) Is not processed through the residential infill design review process pursuant to LOC 50.08.003.2.e; (b) Is not located within a delineated RP resource, RC protection area, or HBA protection area pursuant to LOC 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts; (c) Does not impact a historic landmark designated pursuant to LOC 50.06.009; (d) Is not located within a Historic District; LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 99/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (e) Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; (f) Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS)for the development in which the subject property is located; or (g) Is not located in the Greenway Management Overlay District, as identified in LOC 50.05.009. (h) Is not middle housing located in a Commercial, Industrial or Mixed Use Zone, as identified in LOC 50.02.002.1. Item 2.1 [R]: Specify that middle housing development in Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use Districts is not classified as ministerial development. As mentioned above under Item 1.1 [R],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. Because Division 46 does not require that middle housing be allowed within commercial, industrial, or mixed-use districts, it is not necessary to process middle housing applications in those districts as ministerial development. This amendment clarifies that middle housing in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones will continue to be considered minor development. (g) Is not middle housing located in a Special Purpose Zone, as identified in LOC 50.02.002.3. Item 2.2 [R]: Specify that middle housing development in Special Purpose Districts is not classified as ministerial development. Because Division 46 does not require that middle housing be allowed within special purpose zones, it is not necessary to process middle housing applications in those zones as ministerial development. This amendment clarifies that middle housing in special purpose zones will continue to be considered minor development, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. (3) Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single-family dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, duplex, zero lot line dwelling, middle housing, or structure accessory to such structures which: (a) Does not increase building footprint or height, except if the increase in building height is required to comply with Building or Fire Codes and does not substantially modify any street-facing facade, or the increase in building footprint is 100 sq.ft. or less and does not substantially modify any street-facing facade; or LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 100/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (b) Does not modify, either by itself or cumulatively with prior modifications after December 1, 2011, more than 25%of the facade, as the facade existed on December 1, 2011, excluding in both cases a change of color of the facade; or (c) If the property abuts property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the facade visible from the residentially zoned property; or (d) Does not modify any facade, including change of color of facade, for a building that was the subject of a prior development review approval ("change of color" occurs when the new color is not within the shades or tones of the approved color); or (e) Does not result in additional illumination of the facade, including accent lighting,for a building that was the subject of a prior development review approval; and (f) Complies with subsections a.ii(2)(a)through (f) of this section. Item 12.2 [G]: Remove code references to "dwelling, zero lot line"within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 12.1 [G], above. Item 1.2 [R]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 1.1 [R], above. //// e. Review and Decision i. Decision-Making Authority Ministerial development applications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. ii. Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments A ministerial development shall comply with the requirements of the zone, including overlay zones, in which the subject lot or parcel is located, the Stormwater Management Code (LOC Article 38.25) and shall comply with the following sections of the development standards: (1) Parking, LOC 50.06.002. (2) Hillside Protection, LOC 50.06.006.2. (3) On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads, LOC 50.06.003.2. (4) If the ministerial development involves placement of a manufactured home, Manufactured Homes, LOC 50.03.003.1.b. (5) Building Design Standard, LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening). (6) Weak Foundation Soils, LOC 50.06.006.1,for construction of structures where the requirements of LOC 50.06.006.1 have not been previously addressed for the development site. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 101/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (7) If located in the Flood Management Area, LOC 50.05.011. (8) Building Design Standard, LOC 50.06.001.2—4, for construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family dwelling, a single duplex on a lot, zero lot line, middle housing- dwelling, or a structure accessory to such structures. Item 1.3 [R]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Review Criteria for Ministerial Development section. See Item 1.1 [R], above. //// 14. MINOR DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS a. Minor Development Classification //// ii. "Minor development" under subsection 14.a.i(1) of this section includes: (1) In the R-DD zone: (a) Construction of new single-family detached dwellings,duplexesmiddle housing dwellings, multi-family dwellings, zero lot line dwellings or exterior modification of a structure containing a nonconforming use that requires a building permit. (b) Expansion or reconstruction that results in a change of use (e frem single-family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (c) Any exterior modification of a single-family detached dwelling that reduces setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.08.003.2.a, R-DD Administrative Modification. (2) Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family structure, duplexmiddle housing dwelling, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: (a) Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(1) or(2); or (b) Requires one or more variances. //// (5) Construction of a structure other than a detached single-family dwelling, duplex middle housing dwelling, zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3) or(19). LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 102/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 3 [R]: Clarify that minor development procedures will apply equally to single-family residences and middle housing in the R-DD Zone. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. Under the City's current system, single-family development is classified as minor development in the R-DD Zone. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's review procedures must be amended to treat middle housing the same as single-family housing. This amendment clarifies that the minor development procedures that apply to detached single-family residences in the R-DD Zone will apply equally to middle housing. Item 4 [R]: Clarify that conversions from detached single-family to middle housing are classified as ministerial development in the R-DD Zone. Division 46 does not allow for design standards to be applied to middle housing created through conversions or additions to single-family dwellings. This amendment clarifies that middle housing created through conversions or additions to an existing detached single-family dwelling will not be subject to the minor development procedures applicable to the R-DD Zone, in order to comply with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 103/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 LOC 50.08:VARIANCES 50.08.001 INTRODUCTION 50.08.002 MINOR VARIANCES 50.08.003 DESIGN VARIANCES 50.08.004 MAJOR VARIANCES //// 50.08.002 MINOR VARIANCES //// 2. MINOR VARIANCE CLASSIFICATIONS a. A variance of 20%or less from yard setbacks or the Oswego Lake setback for a single-family dwelling, zcro lot line dwelling, middle housing dwelling, or an associated accessory structure that does not comply with LOC 50.03.004.2.b, Reduction of Side or Rear Yard Setbacks for Accessory Structures, provided: DRAFTING NOTE: This subsection is the subject of additional amendments under LU 21-0057, which is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on March 17, 2022. Following Council action,this section will be updated to conform to any amendments adopted by the Council. i. The resulting side yard setback is not less than five ft.; and ii. If located in the R-6 zone, a minor variance to front yard setbacks shall be limited to two ft. or less; or iii. If the request is necessary to preserve a tree: (1) The request is the minimum necessary to preserve the tree; and (2) The resulting yard setback is not less than 50%of the required standard; and (3) Side yards are not reduced to less than five ft., and if located in the R-6 zone,the required front yard setback is not reduced by more than two ft. b. A variance from yard setbacks for a structure other than a single-family dwelling, zero lot line` middle housing dwelling, or associated accessory structures up to: i. Side or front yards:two ft.; ii. Rear yards: five ft.; or iii. Fifty percent or less of the required setback if necessary to preserve a tree provided: (1) The request is the minimum necessary to preserve the tree; and LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 104/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (2) The resulting yard setback is not less than 50%of the required standard; and (3) Side yards are not reduced to less than five ft., and if located in the R-6 zone,the required front yard setback is not reduced by more than two ft. //// d. A variance to the maximum floor area for single-family homes or middle housing dwellings of up to 15%; provided, that the lot in question has at least the following minimum lot area: Zone Minimum Lot Size Required R-5 10,000 sq. ft. R-6 12,000 sq. ft. R-7.5 15,000 sq. ft. R-10 15,000 sq. ft. R-15 22,500 sq. ft. e. A variance from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions pursuant to LOC 50.06.004.2. f. A variance to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. g. A variance for construction of a dormer that does not exceed the height of the roof ridge in which Ithe dormer is being constructed in an existing single-family or middle housing detached dwelling that is nonconforming relative to lot coverage or setbacks. h. A variance to distance of driveway from intersections (LOC 50.06.003.2.b). i. A variance to street frontage at the time of creation of subdivision lots (LOC 50.06.003.1.c). j. A variance to driveway and access lane width for flag lots (LOC 50.07.007.2.c). k. A variance to yard requirements for extension of existing nonconforming walls, provided: i. The square footage of any new encroachment into the setback does not exceed the square footage of the existing nonconforming, encroaching portion of the structure. ii. The resulting structure complies with the floor area, lot coverage and other setback requirements. iii. The variance shall not reduce the yard setback by more than 50% and shall not reduce any side yard setback to less than five ft. iv. No previous variance has been granted for an extension of the subject nonconforming wall. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 105/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 v. The expansion area shall be defined by the extension of two or more existing exterior walls. I. A variance to dimensional requirements that is necessary due to prior errors in land surveying. Prior errors in land surveying are errors that were made before the applicant acquired the property or gained control of the property. m. A variance to a determination of the front yard (LOC 50.07.007.2.d) and orientation of the front of the house for flag lots(LOC 50.07.007.2.e.i(1)). n. A variance to the limitation on maximum height of roof-mounted solar energy system in LOC 50.04.003.4.b.ii. o. A variance to a standard of this Code required to comply with state or federal law based on the rights of the occupant,where the application identifies the state or federal law granting the right. P. A variance to one or more of the following standards established by the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LGVCO) or a base zone district underlying the LGVCO by up to 20%or four feet, whichever is less: i. Yard setbacks in LOC 50.05.007.4.d, but not including Village Transition yard setbacks adjacent to residential zones or residential uses; ii. Build-to line (LOC 50.05.007.4.e.i); iii. Minimum street frontage (LOC 50.05.007.4.e.ii); iv. Parking facility edge landscaping requirement(LOC 50.05.007.6.e.viii(5)); or v. Buffering area and screening requirements adjacent to R-7.5 or R-10 parcels (LOC 50.05.007.6.f.i). q. A variance to the standards of LOC 50.03.004.1.b.vi(1)(e)for accessory dwelling units. Item 19 [G]: Modify minor variance standards to apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone.The City's current minor variance standards are written such that they allow single-family dwellings variances that are larger or greater than those available to other housing types. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's minor variance standards must apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally.This amendment clarifies that the minor variance standards procedures that apply to detached single-family residences will apply equally to middle housing. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 106/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.08.003 DESIGN VARIANCES //// 2. DESIGN VARIANCE CLASSIFICATIONS a. R-DD Design For exterior modifications of a single-family detached or middle housing dwelling in the R-DD zone built before 1960, minimum setbacks may be reduced between two ft. and five ft. if the modification maintains at least 50%of the exterior walls (measured by sq. ft.) and does not increase height by more than 100%. Minimum setback adjustments of two ft. or less are exceptions to the R-DD district standards pursuant to LOC 50.04.003.3.c. Item 20 [G]: Modify design variance standards in the R-DD Zone to apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally. As mentioned above under Item 19 [G],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone.The City's current design variance standards are written such that they allow single-family dwellings variances that are larger or greater than those available to other housing types within the R-DD Zone. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's design variance standards for the R-DD Zone must apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally.This amendment clarifies that the design variance standards that apply to detached single-family residences in the R-DD Zone will apply equally to middle housing. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 107/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS // 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms shall mean: //// Access Lane The area on private property that extends from the public right-of-way and is permitted to provide ingress and egress for two to three lots by applicable surface modes of travel. Accessory Structure (Accessory Building) Any detached structure the use of which is subordinate and consistent with that of the primary structure and which is consistent with the structures and uses allowed in the zone in which it is located. Examples: play structures, sheds, and gazebos. //// Congregate Housing Multi-unit housing that: (a) consists of self-contained apartments with cooking facilities; and (b) complies with one of the following: (i) at least 80%of the apartments are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older; or(ii)the housing supports independent lifestyles for those who have a disability as defined in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, including any amendments thereto, and who do not require residential care or skilled nursing services; and (c) provides varying levels of support services, such as meals, laundry, housekeeping, transportation, and social, recreation, cultural and education activities.The full range of services normally associated with a residential care facility are not provided in association with congregate housing. Continuing Care Retirement Community(CCRC) An age-restricted development that provides a continuum of accommodations and care, from independent living to convalescence care and long-term skilled nursing care, and enters into contracts to provide lifelong care.A CCRC typically includes a full range of living arrangements from independent living, congregate housing, residential care and skilled nursing and sometimes hospice care. CCRCs provide a range of ancillary facilities and services such as health care, meals with common dining facilities, physical therapy, education, recreation, and other social and cultural activities. //// Cottage Cluster A grouping of no fewer than five and no more than eight detached cottage cluster dwellings, which includes a common courtyard. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 108/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 5 [G]:Add a definition of"cottage cluster"that is distinct from "dwelling, cottage cluster". Division 46 defines "cottage cluster" as"a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre with a footprint of less than 900 square feet each that includes a common courtyard."The definition above is consistent with the Division 46 definition, but also allows for a distinction between a "cottage cluster" and a "cottage cluster dwelling," in order to allow code references to relate to either an entire cottage cluster development or an individual detached dwelling within a cottage cluster development. Item 6 [G]: Specify that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of five and a maximum of eight dwelling units. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow the City to define the minimum number of dwellings in a cottage cluster, and to set a maximum of eight dwelling units per cottage cluster. City Council and the Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to set the minimum number of units for a cottage cluster at five as a means of differentiating requirements for cottage clusters from other forms of detached middle housing.This is consistent with previous Council direction to not permit detached quadplexes and avoids confusion with any future allowances of detached quadplexes. The amendment also clarifies that cottage clusters are subject to a maximum of eight dwelling units, in compliance with Division 46. Courtyard An open space surrounded or mostly surrounded by walls or buildings. Commercial courtyards shall consist of some textured materials or pavers and shall contain one or more of the following elements: landscaping,fountain, arbor, or outdoor furniture. Courtyard. Common A common area for use by residents of a cottage cluster. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 109/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 7 [G]:Add a definition of"common courtyard"to align with Cottage Cluster requirements. The Model Code includes the following definition of"common courtyard": "Common courtyard"means a common area for use by residents of a cottage cluster.A common courtyard may function as a community yard. Hard and soft landscape features may be included in a common courtyard, such as lawn, groundcover, trees, shrubs, patios, benches, or gazebos. Pedestrian paths must be included as part of a common courtyard. The definition above is consistent with the Division 46 definition, but omits the second and third sentences.These sentences were included instead in the use-specific standards for common courtyards within a cottage cluster, as they can be more appropriately described as standards for a common courtyard than a definition. //// Detached A horizontal separation of three ft. or more, between the subject structure and nearby structures. The separation shall be from eave to eave, or where there are no eaves,the separation shall be measured between the closest elements (excluding breezeways no more than eight ft. in width measured from eave to eave, air conditioning units, heat pumps, and similar attached or connected fixtures to the structure) of the two structures. (If the distance of separation is less than three ft. between two structures,they shall be deemed to be "attached.") //// Development Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real property, including, but not limited to, construction, installation or alteration of a building or other structure, change of use, land division, establishment or termination of a right of access, storage on the land, grading, clearing, removal or placement of soil, paving, dredging, filling, excavation, drilling operations or removal of trees. Development Permit Written authorization for a development to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been given in accordance with this Code. Development Site The total area of parcel(s) or lot(s) prior to a development action, such as a partition or subdivision, or other development activity. //// Driveway LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 110/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 A vehicular accessway that has, as its primary purpose,the provision of a driveable connection between a structure or parking area on a lot and connecting to the shared access easement, access lane, private street, or public street system. "Driveway" may include parking pads, turnaround areas, and parking lot aisles. Driveway Approach That portion of the driveway that is situated in the public right-of-way. Driveway Grade The ratio of the change in elevation to the change in horizontal distance traveled, measured along the steepest ten-ft. increment along the centerline of the traveled way. Grades are expressed in percent. //// Duplex A single detached building on its own lot designed to cc\ntn two dwelling units.Two attached dwelling units on a lot. Item 8 [G]: Modify the definition of"duplex"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "duplex" as "two attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel," and specifies that cities must include a similar definition. In order to comply with the minimum compliance provisions, the definition above is consistent with the Division 46 definition. Dwelling Attached Townhome Two or more attached single family dwelling vnits4 with ach unit located on its own let,thwr;ng side by side common wall(s), with no dwslRng initsth2ring common horizcnt22-surfaces. The common wall chill consist of a structural well thct k-& ed-for c le 25%of the length of the side of each dwelling unit. An attached townhome is also called a rowhouse, townhouse, or a common wall house. Item 9.2 [G]: Remove the existing definition of"dwelling, attached townhouse" and refer instead to the new"townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the Definition of Terms section. See Item 9.1 [G], above. //// Dwelling, Cottage Cluster A single detached dwelling within a cottage cluster, which. may be located on a ri i Ic lot or on individual lots. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 111/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 10 [G]: Add a definition for"dwelling, cottage cluster". Division 46 defines "cottage cluster" as"a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre with a footprint of less than 900 square feet each that includes a common courtyard."The addition of a new definition for a cottage cluster dwelling allows for a distinction between a "cottage cluster" and a "cottage cluster dwelling," in order to allow code references to relate to either an entire cottage cluster development or an individual detached dwelling within a cottage cluster development. Dwelling, Live-Work A building that contains one or more commercial or office spaces on the first floor connected to residential units above or behind the commercial or office space, and the ownership of the building is not divided between the residential and commercial portions of the building. Dwelling, Multi-Family A building on one or more lots designed to contain three five or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units.The land underneath the structure is not divided into separate lots. "Multi-family dwelling" includes structures commonly called garden apartments, apartments and condominiums. Item 11 [G]: Revise the definition of"dwelling, multi-family"to exclude middle housing. Under the existing definition of"multi-family dwelling", the City considers a "building on one or more lots designed to contain three or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units"to be a multi-family dwelling. However, with the addition of middle housing types such as triplexes and quadplexes to the code, the existing definition of multi-family dwelling could result in confusion as to whether middle housing dwellings that contain three or more units (ie: a triplex or quadplex)would also be considered multi-family dwellings. In order to provide clarity and remove overlap,this amendment changes the definition of"multi-family dwelling"to a "building on one or more lots designed to contain five or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units."This amendment is necessary in order to clarify which standards will apply to newly-permitted middle housing types that contain more than three dwelling units. Dwelling, Single-Family, Detached A detached dwelling unit designed and used for that purpose, located on its own lot,that does not share walls with any other primary dwelling. Dwelling Unit LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 112/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 One or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, sanitary facilities, cooking and eating. [Cross-Reference: See also "Family" definition referring to occupancy of dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit.] Dwelling Unit,Accessory An accessory dwelling unit(ADU), either internal to, attached, or separate from a detached single-family dwelling unit and on the same lot as that dwelling.The following dwelling configurations shall constitute an ADU regardless of whether the occupants of the second dwelling unit are a part of the family of the occupants of the primary dwelling unit: a. An accessory structure that contains all of the elements of a dwelling unit within the accessory structure and the accessory structure complies with LOC 50.03.004.1.b.vi; or b. A portion of the primary structure that contains the elements of an ADU pursuant to LOC 50.03.004.1.b.vi, and the other portion of the primary structure meets the definition of"dwelling unit," and the two portions are physically separated from each other so that the usual and customary use of the two portions of the structure is as separate dwelling units, not as a single, interconnected housekeeping unit. OweitingZer-e-ket—Line A building r;\lviding two dwelling units on two separate lotc4 cring a common wall, and uscd for ccsidonticl p rpoc& Item 12.4 [G]: Remove the existing definition of"dwelling, zero lot line"within the Definition of Terms section. See Item 12.1 [G], above. //// Facade All the wall planes of a structure as seen from the one side or view. For example,the front facade of a building would include all of the wall area that would be shown on the front elevation of the building plans. Family An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, or associated by guardianship, conservatorship or a foster care relationship, or a group of not more than five persons not so related or associated living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit. [DRAFTING NOTE:this definition is the subject of the 2021 Code Updates, to eliminate the number and relationship requirements, only requiring that the persons live together as a single housekeeping unit.] LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 113/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// Floor Area The gross building floor area excluding: a. Attic (the unfinished space between the ceiling joists of the top story and the roof rafters); b. Vent shafts; c. Courtyards; d. Garages, except as modified in: i. The R-5 zone (LOC 50.04.001.2.d.i(1),for residential development); ii. The R-6 zone (LOC 50.04.001.2.d.i(1),for outright permitted residential development); iii. The R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones (LOC 50.04.001.1.d.i(1),for single family dwellings); e. Allowable projections per LOC 50.04.003.8.a, Projections from Buildings; f. Decks; g. Patios; h. Uncovered exit stairs; i. Uncovered, above-grade driveways; and j. Seasonal restaurant enclosures. Item 19.7 [D]: Clarify that the floor area standards for garages in the Definition of Floor Area apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [G], above. This amendment is also necessary in order for area within the garage of a middle housing dwelling to be considered "floor area", per Planning Commission direction. Floor Area Ratio(FAR) The ratio of the floor area to the lot size.The greater the FAR,the greater the floor area relative to the size of the lot. For example, a building occupying one-fourth of the net site areas has a FAR of 0.25:1, or 0.25; adding a complete second floor to the same building increases the FAR to 0.50:1, or 0.5. //// Footprint LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 114/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 The polygon formed by(a)the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion thereof, and (b) any structure which is over 30 in. in height with or without exterior walls, but exclusive of vent shafts and courtyards.The footprint does not include the ground area under the eaves of the building or structure. Footprint, Cottage Cluster Dwelling The horizontal area as seen in plan view, measured from the outside of all surrounding exterior walls and supporting columns of a cottage cluster dwelling. It includes cottage cluster dwellings and any attached garages, as well as cantilevered portions of the dwelling on a second floor. It does not include detached garages or carports; accessory structures; trellises; patios; up to two feet of eaves; and areas of porches, decks, and balconies less than 30 inches above finished grade. Item 13 [G]: Add a definition for"cottage cluster dwelling footprint"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The Model Code includes the following definition of"building footprint": "Building footprint"means the horizontal area as seen in plan, measured from outside of all exterior walls and supporting columns. It includes dwellings and attached garages and carports. It does not include detached garages or carports, accessory structures, trellises, patios, and areas of porch, deck, and balcony less than 30 inches from finished grade, or cantilevered covers, porches or projections which do not have a post touching the ground or ramps and stairways required for access. The definition proposed above for a cottage cluster footprint is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with some minor edits to ensure consistency with other terms and language within the development code. //// Garage Opening The garage door, or in the case of a carport, the opening from which cars enter or exit the carport. Garage, Private A structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles belonging to tenants, employees or owners of the property for which the parking spaces contained in or on said garage are required by LOC Chapter 50 and are not open for use by the general public.A carport is a garage. Garage, Public A publicly or privately owned structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles, and open for use by the general public, either free or for remuneration. Public parking garages may include parking spaces for customers, patrons or clients which are required by this Code, provided said parking spaces are clearly identified as parking space(s)for the building or use. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 115/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Garage,Side-Loading A garage that meets the definition of a private garage but is located such that the garage doors, or in the case of carports,the vehicle access openings, face a minimum of 80°away from the street as shown below. STREET , Fii 'l. ,H-;-.;- it li :;::. .:: ios Y Y . , Y h. Y Y } Y L } , Y Y 1 Y Y Front-load leg g garage Side-loading garage Side-loading garage , , Y A side-loading garage has garage doors that face a minimum of 804 away from the street_ Garage Wall Area The garage wall area includes the entire area on the specified side of a structure between the ceiling, floor, and walls of the garage, including the garage door. //// Gross Building Floor Area The combined square footage area (measured from the exterior of the surrounding exterior wall framing) of a building or portions thereof of all stories of a building. Where a square footage limitation is imposed by this Code upon a building or structure,the method of measuring the square footage shall be presumed to be by"gross building floor area" unless otherwise stated. Group Care Home LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 116/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Any dwelling licensed under the authority of ORS 443.400 which provides residential care and training to five or fewer adults who are mentally or emotionally disturbed, developmentally disabled, alcohol or drug dependent persons, elderly, or physically disabled. "Residential care" means as defined in ORS 443.400. "Group care homes" are also known as "residential treatment home" and "residential training home" under ORS 442.400.Additional "family" members related to the five or fewer adults may reside in the dwelling, as part of a single housekeeping unit, e.g., persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, or associated by guardianship, conservatorship, or a foster care relationship. Guest House An accessory structure of less than 400 sq. ft. with no cooking or kitchen facilities, used for occasional temporary lodging of persons, and for which no payment or compensation is given in whole or part for lodging or use of the guest house. //// Habitable "Habitable" means the portion of any building or structure used, or intended for use on a day-to-day basis, by people for residential purposes, or for purposes of conducting a commercial or industrial business, public use, or institutional use, or for purposes of a similar nature. //// Height of Building The vertical distance above a reference point measured to the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the highest point of the gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference points are determined as follows: a. If,for purposes of construction of a structure, an artificial elevation of the ground surface results: the elevation of any ground surface prior to construction at or within the exterior wall of the building. b. If,for purposes of construction of structure,there is an alteration or artificial lowering of the ground surface: the elevation of any ground surface after construction at or within the exterior wall of the building. See figure below, Measurement of Building Height. c. On Lots within the Flood Management Area: i. The elevation of any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building prior to construction of any structure which artificially elevates the ground surface, except that if the structure elevates the ground surface to the minimum required for the purpose of raising the floor level above the base flood elevation consistent with LOC 50.05.011, Flood Management Area,then the reference point shall be the elevated ground surface. ii. Residential—Waterfront Cabanas (R-W)Zone: the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation. d. On Lots within a Subdivision,with or without a Planned Development Overlay: For the purposes of determining building height, ground surface shall mean the elevation of the: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 117/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 i. Natural ground surface; or ii. Altered ground surface, as a result of the prior subdivision approval. Exception:The ground surface of a window well shall be deemed to be the same as the adjacent ground surface when the dimensions of the window well do not exceed three ft. by six ft. and the cumulative width of the window well(s) on a building facade does not exceed 40%. Measurement of Building Becht-Reference Point ELEVATED GROUND SURFACE FLAT LOT— 1U 14 1; *— UNALTERED GROUND f NATURAL GROUND ( 1t 11 1t AE SURFACE NATURAL GROUND SURFACE SLOPED LOT _-- LOWERED GROUND UNALTERED GROUND SURFACE SURFACE }( }( }( }( }( • BUILDING HEIGHT REFERENCE POINT //// Lake Oswego Style A building design that borrows from the City's historic architectural traditions including the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and the Oregon Rustic styles. Buildings which use complex massing, asymmetrical composition and natural materials exemplify this style (see photos and descriptions in LOC 50.11.001, Appendix A: Lake Oswego Style). Adherence to the "Lake Oswego Style" is not intended to require historical replication. Modern designs interpreting, quoting or utilizing the above noted stylistic forms are also encompassed within the definition. //// Lot LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 118/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 A unit of land created in compliance with all legal requirements in effect and applicable at the time of creation. Lot Area or Lot Size a. Non-Flag Lots:the gross square footage of the lot within the lot lines. b. Flag Lots: the area of a lot, defined by the lot lines, less the area of access easement or flagpole. Lot, Corner A lot abutting two intersecting streets; provided, that the streets do not intersect on an angle greater than 135°. Lot Coverage The ratio of A to B where A is the area of all permanent structures or portions thereof over 30 in. in height, but exclusive of: a. Vent shafts; b. Portions of eaves that extend two ft. or less from exterior walls of the building; c. Open-roofed courtyards; d. Flowerboxes not exceeding two ft. in depth and 110%of the width of the adjoining window/door; e. Decorative metal balconies, i.e.,wrought iron, not exceeding two ft. in depth and 110%of the width of the adjoining window/door; f. Arbor or trellises used as a support for climbing or hanging plants.The trellis may have side(s) or a roof which do not exceed 75%opacity, except if a trellis side is also a side of a building,then that side is not subject to the 75%opacity requirement; g. Boathouses; h. Fences and retaining walls; Other structures similar to the structures above, except boathouses; and B is the lot area or lot size. [Cross-Reference: Flag Lots—the access easement is deducted from "gross acreage." LOC 50.07.007.2.e.vi.] Lot Depth The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line, except for a flag lot, which shall be measured from the midpoint at the front lot line of the flag area. Lot Frontage LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 119/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 That portion of a lot nearest a street. For the purpose of determining yard requirements, all sides of a lot abutting a street shall be considered frontage. Lot, Illegal A unit of land created in violation of one or more legal requirements in effect and applicable at the time of creation. Lot, Interior A lot other than a corner lot, with frontage on only one street. Lot Line Boundary lines of a lot. Lot Line, Front In the case of an interior lot,the lot line separating the lot from the street. In the case of a corner lot, the lot line designated pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.e.iv, 50.04.001.2.e.iii(4), 50.04.001.3.e.i, and Table 50.04.001-14, Note [10]. In the case of flag lots,the lot line designated pursuant to LOC 50.07.007.2.d.i. Lot Line, Front(Solar Access) A lot line abutting a street. For corner lots the front lot line is that with the narrowest frontage. When the lot line abutting a street is curved,the front lot line is the chord or straight line connecting the ends of the curve. For a flag lot,the front lot line is the lot line that is most parallel to and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot. Lot Line, Rear A lot line which is opposite the front lot line. A triangular lot and a through lot have no rear lot line:the frontage on each street of a through lot is a front lot line. For other irregularly shaped lots,the rear lot line is all lot lines that are most nearly opposite the front lot line. Illustration of lot line measurement follows: I cvL4, Iax; Lot • Lot = Lira Lot Lot .•a Lot V a Street • Irregular Lot Triangular Lot Lot Line, Side LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 120/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Any lot line not a front or rear lot line. Lot Line, Side Street On a corner lot,the lot line(s) abutting a street that is not the front lot line. Lot of Record A lot shown as part of a recorded subdivision, partition, or any lot described by metes and bounds in a recorded deed, record of survey or other appropriate document recorded with the County; except that no lot or parcel of land created without compliance with the subdivision or partition requirements in effect and applicable at the time of the lot creation shall be considered a lot of record. Lot, Platted A lot described and identified within a recorded subdivision or partition and remaining the same in size and shape as it was when the subdivision or partition was recorded. Lot, Steeply Sloped A "steeply sloped lot" is a lot with a slope of 20%or more,when measured from the lowest or highest front lot line, whichever results in the greater difference in grade,to the most distant point of the primary building footprint. Lot,Through; Double Frontage Lot A lot other than a corner lot with frontage on more than one street. Lot Width The width of the lot as measured at the front setback line. Major Development Development defined as major development in LOC 50.07.003.15.a, Major Development Classification. //// Middle Housing Duplexes,Triplexes, Quadplexes, Cottage Clusters, and Townhouses in residential zones. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 121/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 14 [G]: Add a definition for"middle housing" to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "middle housing" as, "Duplexes,Triplexes, Quadplexes, Cottage Clusters, and Townhouses."The definition proposed above for middle housing is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the addition of"in residential zones"to clarify that middle housing is only allowed in residential zones. Minor Development Development defined as minor development in LOC 50.07.003.14.a, Minor Development Classification. //// Owner Where used in relationship to real property, "owner" means the legal owner of record or easement holder, or,where there is a recorded land sales contract in effect,the purchaser under that contract.An act or omission to act by an agent of the owner are deemed to be the act or omission by the owner. //// Partition To divide an area or tract of land into two or three lots within a calendar year when such land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under common ownership at the beginning of such year. "Partition" does not include adjustments of lot lines by relocation of a common boundary where no additional lots are created, and the resulting lots satisfy the minimum lot size allowed by this Code, nor foreclosure proceedings or sales exempted by the definition of"partition" in ORS Chapter 92. a. Major Partition: A partition which includes the creation of a street. b. Minor Partition:A partition that does not include the creation of a street. //// Patio An impervious surface on the ground, excluding parking areas and pathways of five ft. or less in width, used for several purposes, including leisure, social gatherings, etc. //// Primary Use The predominant use to which the lot or building is or may be devoted and to which all other uses are accessory. Generally,the primary use is the use to which the majority of the site or building area is devoted, or if no use occupies a majority of the site or building area, then the use that occupies the largest area of the building or site.Accessory uses are ones that occupy a small portion of the site or LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 122/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 building area or exist primarily to serve occupants or residents engaged in uses that occupy a larger area of the building. Quadplex Four attached dwelling units on a lot. Item 15 [G]: Add a definition for"quadplex"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "quadplex" as, "four attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel."The definition for a quadplex proposed above is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the removal of the language "or parcel"for consistency with terms defined in the code. //// Residence, Primary A dwelling where a person lives most of the time. At a given time, a person does not have more than one primary residence. For purposes of determining whether a dwelling is a primary residence,the City may consider whether the dwelling is the legal residence of the person for purposes of voting, motor vehicle/driver licensing, income tax calculation,the time the person spent at the residence, and other such factors. //// Residential Care Housing A "residential care housing" facility houses and provides services for six or more persons who may have a range of physical and mental health problems, including chronic and debilitating conditions requiring assistance with daily activities.This term is synonymous with other terms such as "assisted living facilities," "group care facilities," and "adult care housing" used to describe housing which provides the range of services described below. Living units within residential care housing do not have cooking facilities.A range of services is provided including staff supervised meals, housekeeping and personal care, medication supervision, recreation, cultural, social activities and transportation. Residential care housing facilities may include housing for persons needing intermediate care.These are persons who do not require around-the-clock nursing, but who do need preventative care,therapies at levels less than continuous licensed nursing care or observation. Intermediate care emphasizes personal, social and emotional/mental health care, but involves the availability of 24-hour service with physicians and nurses in supervisory roles. Skilled nursing services, including convalescent care, may be provided as an accessory and subordinate use in conjunction with residential care facilities. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 123/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 The total allowed number of persons requiring skilled nursing care may be up to 25%of a residential care facility's total occupant capacity. Residential Mixed Use Development Development containing both residential and nonresidential uses on a single parcel, or parcels developed as a unified site, where the residential units comprise at least 33%of the floor area of the overall development.Typically, residential mixed use projects include a mix of residential and commercial uses. In residential mixed use development, the residential use may be provided in a separate building on the same site as a non-residential use or in the same building as a nonresidential use, often with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses located on upper floors. //// Setback Line The innermost line of any required yard or reserved area on a lot. //// Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or unused under-floor space is more than six ft. above grade for more than 50%of the total perimeter or is more than 12 ft. above grade at any point, such basement or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. //// Street The entire width between the right-of-way lines of a local street, collector, or arterial capable of providing the principal means of access to abutting property. //// Structure That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. If the structure is located across separate parcels or lots and the portions of the structure are separately owned,the "structure" shall be considered to be only that portion of the structure that is used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy that is occurring within the boundaries of the parcel or lot. For purposes of LOC 50.05.011, Flood Management Area, a "structure" means a walled and roofed building and a gas or liquid storage tank. Structure,Viable Existing LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 124/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 a. An existing structure that complies with LOC 50.05.004, Downtown Redevelopment Design District; b. A designated historic resource; or c. A structure that is not likely to be redeveloped due to use, size, recent construction or other similar factors (e.g., City Hall, Main Fire Station, Bank Building at northeast corner of 4th and A, building at northeast corner of 2nd and B). Subdivide To divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year,when such land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of such year. For the purpose of computing the number of lots created, each lot created shall be counted as a separate lot notwithstanding the fact they are held in common ownership. HU Townhouse A dwelling unit that is part of a row of two or more attached dwelling units,where each unit is located on an individual lot and shares at least one common wall with an adiacent dwelling unit, with no dwelling units sharing common horizontal surfaces.The common wall shall consist of a structural wall that is shared for at least 25%of the length of the side of each dwelling unit. A townhouse is also called a rowhouse, attached townhome, or a common-wall house. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 125/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 16 [G]: Add a new definition of"townhouse"to replace existing definition of"attached townhome dwelling". In order to align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46,the term "attached townhouse dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts. The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "attached townhouse dwellings." Division 46 defines "townhouse" as follows: ...a dwelling unit that is part of a row of two or more attached dwelling units, where each unit is located on an individual Lot or Parcel and shares at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit. The existing definition of"attached townhome dwelling" in this code is as follows: Two or more attached single-family dwelling units, with each unit located on its own lot, sharing side-by-side common wall(s), with no dwelling units sharing common horizontal surfaces. The common wall shall consist of a structural wall that is shared for at least 25%of the length of the side of each dwelling unit.An attached townhome is also called a rowhouse, townhouse, or a common-wall house. The definition for a townhouse proposed above is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the addition of other language from the existing code definition of"attached townhome dwelling" to ensure that townhouse standards are applied as consistently as possible with the City's current practice. Townhouse Project 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 the any commonly owned property. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 126/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 17 [G]: Add a definition for"townhouse project"to align with state minimum compliance requirements, and to allow townhouse standards to be applied to the entire site prior to a land division. City Council provided staff with direction to apply bulk and scale controls to the entire townhouse project, instead of individual lots, consistent with the definition of"townhouse project" in Division 46. See Item 10.1 [D], above. In order to fulfill this direction and align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, the term "attached townhouse dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts.The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "attached townhouse dwellings." Division 46 defines "townhouse project" as, "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 the any commonly owned property."The definition for a townhouse project proposed above is entirely consistent with the Division 46 definition. Traffic Evaluation A report or analysis, conducted by a qualified professional such as an architect, landscape architect, engineer, surveyor, as applicable,to examine the impact(s)to an aspect of the transportation system, i.e., determination of the location and configuration of an access, sight distance analysis, pedestrian crossing evaluation. Traffic Impact Study A report prepared by a professional engineer that assesses the impacts that a particular development's traffic will have on the transportation system in the defined study area and provides an analysis of a proposed transportation solution, if needed. //// Triplex Three attached dwelling units on a lot. Item 18 [G]: Add a definition for"triplex"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "triplex" as, "three attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel."The definition for a triplex proposed above is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the removal of the language "or parcel"for consistency with terms defined in the code. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 127/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Wall A structure which stands alone and which supports no load other than its own weight.The wall may have a solid vertical surface or may have an open pattern. Walls, Exterior Any wall or element of a wall, or group of members,which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building and which has a slope of 60°or greater with the horizontal plane. Wall, Retaining A structure of masonry, wood, stonework or other building material serving to support or protect an area. For the purpose of this Code, stabilized slopes 60°or greater in inclination shall be considered retaining walls. //// Yard An open, unoccupied space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this Code, on the lot on which a building is situated. Yard, Front A yard,the front of which is the front lot line measuring at right angles toward the building the required distance or to the front exterior wall of the building. Yard, Rear A yard, measured at right angles from the rear lot line toward the building, the required distance. Yard, Required The area of land and space between a lot line (or for lots with special street setbacks,the special street setback line if outside the right-of-way) and a setback line, whether the setback line is established by the terms of this Code or by an approval granted pursuant to this Code. Yard,Side A yard, measured at right angles from the side lot line toward the building,the required distance. [Cross-References: Old Town styles: See LOC 50.05.006.2, Definitions of Old Town Styles; Village Character: See LOC 50.05.004.4, Definition of Village Character.] 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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 9-7.5, 69.2 502.7 - - 571.9 1,545 783 863 272.1 299.8 R-10,R-15 zones) Medium Density (primarily small 5.5 30.6 104.3 - 140.4 1,017 456 561 62.9 77.5 lot SID in R-3, R-5 zones) High Density (primarily MF in RO, 9-2,R-2.5, 2.6 5.6 22.6 80.9 111.9 2,400 2,321 79 108.2 3.7 GC,NC/RU, 00/R3,EC,HC, CR&D,EC/SO, DC 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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 EXHIBIT B-1/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 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 { ` ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes ` maw April 11 , 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chamber, at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Robert Heape, and Commissioners Rex Buchanan, Helen Leek, Don Phillips, Miles Rigby*, and Philip Stewart. Vice Chair Christian Pape was excused. Council liaison Jackie Manz was not present. Staff present were Scot Siegel, Community Development Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Erik Olson, Senior Planner; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant. Also present was Jamin Kimmel*, with Cascadia Partners. *Participated remotely 3. COUNCIL UPDATE None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Beniamin Hendricks discussed problems and solutions for creating a safe •untry Club Road. Chair Heape indicated he would forward Mr. Hendricks' concerns to th- appropriate departmental staff. Greg Aarons summarized additional thoughts over the issue '-ised by Mr. Hendricks. Chair Heape stated he would forward these concerns, as well. 5. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ( ) — GENERAL UPDATES Chair Heape made the following announce .-nts: • The Uplands Neighborhood Ass. cation General Membership meeting was scheduled for April 21, 2022 • The Glenmorrie Neighbo ood Association Annual "Ivy Pull and Cleanup" was scheduled for May 1 122. 6. FINDINGS, CONCL : ONS AND ORDER 6.1 Community Dew opment Code Amendment to Table 50.04.002-1 Special Street Setback (LU 22- 0004) On M 28, 2022, the Planning Commission made a preliminary recommendation that the City Co cil approve the proposed amendment and directed staff to return with the draft Findings, onclusions and Order. Staff coordinator was Evan Fransted, Senior Planner. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 1 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 Commissioner Buchanan moved to approve the Findinas. Conclusions or LU 22- 0004, as written. Commissioner Leek seconded till. met ,,, dna it passed 6:0. Commissioner Stewart shared that he w, apt-iri-aliriaance during the last meeting, but he had reviewed the 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Community Development Code Amendments Related to Middle Housing (LU 22-0007) A request from the City of Lake Oswego to amend LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to comply with Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing"— including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters — in areas that permit detached single-family dwellings. Staff coordinator was Erik Olson, Senior Planner. Chair Heape opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedures. At the time of declarations, there were no financial conflicts of interest reported. Staff Report Mr. Olson provided background and an overview of the proposed amendments: PROCESS a. Phase 1 Progress This began in late 2019 when the City Council directed staff to monitor the State's rule- making process related to Middle Housing and House Bill 2001 (HB 2001), resulting in monthly written and oral reports to the Planning Commission (Commission). Division 46 requirements were adopted by the State approximately one year later. Consultants from Cascadia Partners were then brought on board to assist with the analyses of neighborhood conditions and patterns, and to perform an audit of the Code to outline the amendments needed for compliance with the Bill. The findings and alternatives were presented in May 2021 and discussed thereafter. b. Phase 2 Progress Early in the summer of 2021, the City Council appointed an ad hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC). This committee met six times and submitted a document to the City Council, referred to as the "MHCAC Key Issues and Summary Memo," which included recommendations on a variety of topics. The City Council then directed staff to prepare code amendments based on the MHCAC recommendations which were required to be adopted by the State's June 2022 deadline. A community forum was also held in December 2021. Most recently, the Commission held four work sessions to discuss remaining policy questions related to the proposed code amendments. The recommendations received from the Commission were presented by staff to the City Council on February 15, 2022. The Code Amendments Draft was released to the public on March 7, 2022, along with a staff memo outlining new modifications. The latest community forum was held on March 22, 2022. An additional public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for May 17, 2022. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 2 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS a. Definitions • Add "Middle Housing" definition to align with Division 46 requirements. • Separate Triplexes, Quadplexes, and other middle housing types from Multi-Family housing in residential zones where Division 46 applies. • Add definitions for Cottage Clusters (new definitions of Cottage Cluster, Cottage Cluster Dwelling, Common Courtyard, and Cottage Cluster Footprint added to align with state requirements). • Add definitions for Townhouse and Townhouse Project (use these new terms to replace other similar terminology in the code, such as "Attached Townhouse Dwelling" and "Zero Lot-Line Dwelling"). b. Applicability, Uses, Locations, and Density • Allow middle housing types in all residential zones where required (all residential zones that begin with "R" not being in a mixed-use area). • Update purpose statements to include middle housing. • Remove references to single-family zones. • Covenants, conditions, and/or restrictions adopted prior to January 1, 2020 remain enforceable; however, HB 2001 prohibits Homeowners Associations (HOAs) or other parties from adopting new provisions that prohibit middle housing development on or after January 1, 2020. • Table 3. Analysis of Use Regulations modifications were described. • Duplex construction permitted on nonconforming lots, as required by Division 46 (other middle housing types must still meet underlying siting standards; i.e., minimum lot size, lot width, building setbacks, et cetera). • Lots for triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters must be larger than what is required for single-family houses in the R-3, R-W, R-DD, R-5, and R-6 Districts (Triplex: 6,000 square foot minimum lot size; Quadplex: 7,000 square foot minimum lot size; Cottage Cluster: 7,000 square foot minimum lot size). • Middle housing, other than townhouses, will be exempted from maximum density provisions. • For townhouses, the maximum density is 4-times the density for single-family dwellings in that zone. • Minimum density of four (4) units per acre established for cottage clusters. • Density limitations that apply on a per-dwelling basis were removed. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 3 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 c. Review Procedures New middle housing development (in residential zones only) to be classified as a ministerial decision, except: Townhouses require a land division, which is still considered minor development, but design review of townhome buildings will no longer be required in residential zones. In the R-DD Zone, all development (including single-family and middle housing dwellings) will still be minor development; and variances will continue to require minor development review (minor variance standards, and design variance standards in the R-DD Zone, were modified to apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally). d. Conversions and Additions • Middle housing, created through the conversion of a single-family dwelling, is exempted from building design standards. • For additions to a single-family dwelling that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards "shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure." • Regulates non-conforming development for middle housing and single-family dwellings equally. e. Design and Dimensional Standards • Existing bulk and massing standards (or"dimensional" standards) for single-family housing will be applied to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects (i.e., minimum setbacks, maximum floor area, lot coverage, height; and side and rear setback planes). • Height exceptions allowed for buildings that provide wider setbacks, and different setback standards apply to steeply-sloped lots. • Existing design standards for single-family housing will also be applied to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses (i.e., Side Yard Appearance and Screening; Long Wall Planes; Solar Access; On-Site Circulation; Street Connectivity; Transit; Overlay-specific Design Standards; and R-6 Zone-specific Design Standards). • Proposed amendments go beyond minimum compliance to enhance existing single- family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways for middle housing. • Existing driveway standards for single-family dwellings will be applied to duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. • On lots with less than 75 feet of frontage, only one driveway will be allowed for both single- family and middle housing developments: Intended to maintain consistency with single-family housing; will result in more widely spaced driveways, which may reduce paving, grading, and tree removal; reduces the number of access points to the street; and encourages more of the front yard to remain unpaved and landscaped. • Existing standards permit one driveway per lot for townhouses. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 4 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 • Staff proposed modifications to these standards intended to mitigate potential negative impacts of townhouse development: Limit the width of driveways on smaller lots to reduce excess paving that is not consistent with neighborhood character; and driveways that are wider than their associated garage opening will now be prohibited. • Existing garage appearance and location standards will apply to all middle housing. • Staff proposed the following modifications to standards intended to minimize the visual prominence of garages: require garage recessing (at least 2 feet) behind the main façade or behind a porch, for garages occupying 30% or more of the width of the façade; and allow exceptions to increase the width of the garage to 75% only for lots that are narrower than 50 feet. • Scale design standards based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. • Garages shall comply with a minimum number of the following appearance standards: provide individual garage doors for each parking stall; provide separate garage openings offset from one another by at least two feet horizontally; provide windows on each garage door; Provide a decorative trellis, pergola, or other feature giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed; provide a covered porch that occupies at least 25% of the combined façade of the dwelling and garage; and provide a patio with a surrounding screening wall at a height of four (4) feet, located between the front of the house, the garage, and the public right-of-way. • The proposal is to adopt the standards of the DLCD Model Code that apply to cottage cluster housing, which include that: a cottage cluster will have 5 to 8 cottages oriented around a common courtyard; the footprint of each cottage (the size of the first story) must be 900 square feet or less; cottage clusters are exempt from lot coverage standards; 10-foot minimum setback required on all sides and 10-foot minimum separation required between buildings; parking lots must be screened from view from the street; and the common courtyard must be landscaped and have walkways. • Proposed code amendments apply maximum floor area requirements to individual cottages within a cluster: in the R-7.5, R-6, R-5, R-DD, R-3, R-2, R-0, and R-W Zones, the average floor area of individual cottages within a cottage cluster may not exceed 1,000 square feet; in the R-10 and R-15 Zones, the average floor area of individual cottages within a cottage cluster may not exceed 1,200 square feet. The intention is to replicate the maximum floor area permitted for single-family dwellings and other middle housing types, to the fullest extent possible, while still maintaining compliance with Division 46 requirements. f. Parking and Access • Per Division 46 requirements, a minimum of one (1) parking space per dwelling unit will be required for all middle housing types: there is no cap on the number of spaces that may be provided; required parking spaces do not have to be located within a garage or carport; and parking space dimensions currently required for detached single-family dwellings will also be required for middle housing. • Access lanes currently allow housing to be built in areas that do not have frontage on a public street as an exception to street frontage requirements. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 5 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 • Per Division 46, duplexes must be permitted the same exceptions to public works requirements as detached single-family residences. Therefore, duplexes must now be permitted on flag lots served by access lanes in order to comply with Division 46 requirements. • Additionally, on-lane parking spaces located on the access lane must be counted towards minimum parking requirements to comply with Division 46 maximum/minimum parking standard. g. Overlay Districts • Clarify that design standards for detached single-family dwellings in applicable overlay districts will now apply to middle housing (impervious surface limitations will remain effective, though cottage clusters will be subject to use-specific impervious surface standards that only apply impervious surface limits to the common courtyard). • Modify the following standards not to scale by the number of dwelling units, as required under Division 46: front entry design standards in the Old Town Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District, and front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone. • Detached single-family dwellings and middle housing to be treated the same for the purposes of alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone. • Per Division 46, duplex development will be allowed within the Resource Protection (RP) District— because the code currently allows detached single-family development within RP Districts, duplex development must also be allowed, and triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters, not already allowed by the zone, will continue to not be permitted within RP Districts). • Duplexes will be allowed on sites otherwise encumbered by an RP District. • Density transfer provisions and mitigation planting standards within the RP District will also be extended to duplexes. RELATED POLICIES NOT WITHIN SCOPE a. Expedited Middle Housing Land Divisions • Under Senate Bill 458, the City must allow expedited land divisions for middle housing to enable each dwelling unit to be owned and sold individually (the "Parent lot" must comply with applicable middle housing land use regulations, not resulting in more than one dwelling unit per each resulting lot or parcel; structures must comply with all relevant building code requirements (i.e., firewalls); and separate utilities must be provided for each resulting middle housing unit/lot, including easements required for utilities, common areas, parking, and driveways). • There will be no reference to Senate Bill 458 or expedited land divisions for middle housing within the code itself(the City will defer to ORS 197.360197.380 directly when processing expedited middle housing land division applications). b. Public Improvement Standards • Changing the classification of certain types of housing from minor development to ministerial development impacts requirements that development provide public City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 6 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 improvements to mitigate the impacts of their approved development (there is currently no opportunity for the City to require mitigations or offsetting public improvements for ministerial development). • The City is working to develop new clear and objective public improvement standards for ministerial applications to mitigate impacts of development (will differ from the City's current minor development process, which requires a case-by-case, rough proportionality analysis, and these standards will be newly-applicable to single-family dwellings and middle housing). c. Demolitions and Non-Conforming Structures • The City Council is reviewing the definition of demolition in the Building Code (LOC Chapter 45) to better address significant structural removal. • Policies related to the continuation of non-conforming development are under review. d. Affordability and accessibility • One goal of HB 2001 is to create more housing that is affordable to families with low or moderate incomes. • Middle housing also has potential to create housing that is accessible to people with disabilities and seniors; however, new middle housing is unlikely to be affordable to lower income families in Lake Oswego or accessible without subsidy or assistance. • Programs and policies to encourage the construction of deed-restricted affordable housing and housing with accessibility features that exceed the ADA requirements will be explored in the City's upcoming work to comply with House Bill 2003 — Housing Needs Analysis update slated for 2023, and Housing Production Strategy (as required under HB 2003) slated for 2024. Questions of Staff Commissioner Rigby asked for further details regarding infrastructure development to mitigate the impacts of development into ministerial decisions, as that sounded as if a checklist would be used. Mr. Boone confirmed that a checklist would be used, following current processes, and applied by the Engineering Department, as the current Conditioning Authority; however, mitigation would be set at the time of the building permit application. Chair Heape inquired whether staff looked at a minimum footprint requirement in cottage cluster development, as was previously discussed. Mr. Olson stated that staff did look at this and was not sure if it could be included, though a minimum floor area could be set under Division 46; adding that there was no way to dictate that more floor area be provided on the ground floor per Division 46 requirements. Mr. Siegel reminded members that this topic was considered during previous work sessions by the Commission, when accessibility was being discussed. Chair Heape noted that the public raised the issue of a 900-square-foot footprint; asking that clarification be provided during public testimony. Public Testimony Carole Ockert shared a slide presentation; recommending that a revision be made regarding the covered front porch requirements in the R-6 Zone (found only in the First Addition Neighborhood). She noted that this revision would still allow for multiple entries for middle City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 7 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 housing and for covered patios with fireplaces on the side entrance, but would not require that the "main entrance" be off of the front porch. Ms. Ockert laid out the specific draft code wording as follows: "The covered front porch must be open and unobstructed/unobscured on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage. A railing may be provided up to three (3) feet in height as measured from the finished floor of the covered front porch or the State mandated railing height for that project, whichever is higher." Commissioner Leek asked about language in the code requiring that the front porch be on the long side of the lot, when on a corner. Ms. Ockert replied that the front porch must be on the narrow side of the lot, but the main entrance may be on the long side of the lot. Commissioner Leek stated that she was asking about the code outside of the First Addition Neighborhood. Mr. Olson indicated that this was inadvertently allowed for when the standards were updated; adding that staff had adjusted the language so that the side porches could no longer count toward the requirement of a front porch being on the narrow street frontage. Chair Heape summarized the concerns received in emails from various citizens as follows: the potential impacts that the denser housing would have on the tree canopy; community experience and potential lower property values; individual cottages in cottage clusters requiring a minimum footprint of 800 square feet; and insufficient space to meet the needs of persons with ambulatory limitations on the ground floor of an individual cottage in a cottage cluster. He opined that the issues over ADA compatibility were outside the scope of minimal implementation of the model code, and that there would be more work to be done when the Commission addressed HB 2003. Chair Heape closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing. Deliberations Commissioner Stewart asked for confirmation that the covered front porch must face the narrow street frontage. Mr. Olson confirmed this. Chair Heape asked if staff had any feedback regarding Ms. Ockert's recommendation. Mr. Olson replied that staff did not discuss the specific language and it was not included in the supplemental staff memo because it seemed to be beyond the scope of what they were tasked with for middle housing; however, this may be a suitable time to address what was intended in the amendment from 2015. Chair Heape then asked if they were looking at the front porch standards because Division 46 had concerns about limiting the ability to scale. Mr. Olson agreed that they could not require a front porch for every single entrance because that would be scaling by the number of dwelling units; adding that staff simplified the language to comply with middle housing. Mr. Olson also agreed with Chair Heap's opinion that the wording in Ms. Ockert's proposal would be acceptable modifications. Commissioner Buchanan asked Ms. Ockert if having the fireplace off to the side on the front porch was acceptable. Ms. Ockert answered that the code allowed for as little as 50% of the front of the structure to contain the front porch and the intent was to have nothing else obstructing the front; adding that fireplaces along the sides or in the back would be acceptable. Mr. Siegel recommended taking a straw poll for adding recommended wording by Ms. Ockert, and if members were supportive, then staff would review the wording for legal sufficiency and prepare an amendment consistent with the Commission's intent. In the straw poll, all members voted to approve Ms. Ockert's recommendation to add wording for front porch standards. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 8 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 Commissioner Stewart recommended reducing the maximum width of the garage door to 16- feet. Mr. Olson noted that the maximum width of 20-feet applied only to cottage cluster. Commissioner Stewart rescinded that recommendation. Commissioner Stewart moved to approve LU 22-0007, with an addition of accepting Carole Ockert's recommendation for changes to front porch standards in the R-6 zone, following a staff review for legal compliance. Commissioner Leek seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on April 25, 2022. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Heape asked if there were any nominees to serve on the Neighborhood • .ncement Grant Award Committee. Commissioner Leek nominated Commissioner B , anan. Commissioner Buchanan respectively declined. Chair Heape nomin. : Commissioner Phillips. Commissioner Phillips accepted the nomination. Chair Heape moved to appoint Commissioner Phillips t• _-rve on the Neighborhood Enhancement Grant Award Committee as the PlaaPtitS Commission Representative. Commissioner Buchanan seconded the mo and it passed 6:0. 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW Mr. Siegel reviewed th edule forecast. Action Ite . • tour of demolition/non-conforming development sites was scheduled for May 23, 2022. All members indicated that they would be available at 2:00 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Chair Heape adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 9 OF 9 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 22-0007, Ordinance 2892 LOCATION STAFF Citywide Erik Olson, Senior Planner DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE. March 7, 2022 April 11, 2022 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST Consistent with the City Council goal to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change", and the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability," the City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of compliance with Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing —including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family dwellings. The draft code amendments, which would enact these changes, are included in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A-1. The proposed amendments include provisions that: GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS(LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add middle housing development in the purpose statements located within the following sections: 1. R-7.5, R-10, R-15 (Residential High Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.a 2. R-5, R-6, R-DD (Residential Medium Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.b 3. R-0, [R-2], R-3, R-W (Residential High-Density) Zones. LOC 50.02.001.c 2. Allow for the development of middle housing types in Table 50.03.002-1 applicable residential districts within the Residential Districts Use Table, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 1 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 3. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify LOC 50.03.003.4.i(3) that the conditional use standards for group and institutional housing will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 4. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify LOC 50.03.003.5.h.i that the use-specific standards for public, institutional, and civic uses will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 5. Add a definition of"cottage cluster", to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. 6. Specify that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of LOC 50.10.003.2 five and a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 7. Add a definition for "common courtyard" for cottage cluster LOC 50.10.003.2 developments. 8. Modify the definition of"duplex" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. (Maintains existing requirement that duplexes are two attached dwellings.) 9. Remove the existing definition of"dwelling, attached townhouse" and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the following sections: Table 50.03.002-1 1. Residential Districts Use Table LOC 50.10.003.2 2. Definition of Terms 10. Add a definition for "dwelling, cottage cluster". LOC 50.10.003.2 11. Revise the definition of"dwelling, multi-family" to be for LOC 50.10.003.2 developments of five or more attached dwelling units on a lot, to distinguish from middle housing. 12. Remove the existing definition and other code references to "dwelling, zero lot line", and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions, within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; Table 50.03.002-1 2. Ministerial Development Classification; LOC 50.07.003.13.a 3. Definition of Terms. LOC 50.10.003.2 13. Add a definition for "cottage cluster dwelling footprint" to LOC 50.10.003.2 align with state minimum compliance requirements. 14. Add a definition for "middle housing" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 2 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 15. Add a definition for "quadplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 16. Add a new definition of "townhouse" to replace existing LOC 50.10.003.2 definition of"attached townhome dwelling", in alignment with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Add a definition for "townhouse project" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements, and to allow townhouse standards to be applied to the entire site prior to a land division. 18. Add a definition for "triplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 19. Modify minor variance standards to apply to single-family LOC 50.08.002.2.a; residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state 50.08.002.2.b; minimum compliance requirements. 50.08.002.2.d; 50.08.002.2.g 20. Modify design variance standards in the R-DD Zone to apply LOC 50.08.003.2.a to single-family residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add or reference design standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; and Table 50.03.002-1 2. Use-specific standards for cottage clusters. LOC 50.03.003.1.d 2. Exempt duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot, for lots that comply with minimum lot area standards for townhouse projects, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 3 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 3. Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the following sections. to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 4. Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension standards that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the following sections, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low Density Zones - Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.1.b 2. R-5 Zone - Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.2.b.i 3. Residential High-Density Zones— Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.3.b 4. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 5. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 6. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 5. Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Height Standards for Low-Density LOC 50.04.001.1.g.i Residential Zones; 3. Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.i(4) 4. Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.iv(2) 5. Additional Height Standards for Residential High- LOC 50.04.001.3.f.iv(1) Density Zones. 6. Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types to align with state minimum compliance requirements within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. R-5 Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.i(1) 3. R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table; Table 50.04.001-5 4. R-DD Zone Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii(3) 5. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-11 6. R-2 Yard Setbacks Table. Table 50.04.001-13 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 4 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 7. Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 8. Add maximum average floor area standards for individual units within a cottage cluster as follows: 1. 1,200 square feet per unit in the R-10 and R-15 LOC 50.04.001.1.d Zones; 2. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-7.5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.1.d 3. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-6, R-5 and R-DD LOC 50.04.001.2.d.iv Zones; 4. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-0, R-2 and R-3 LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iii Zones. 9. Add building separation standards for cottage clusters, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.e Low-Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Medium-Density Zones; and 3. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.3.e.v High-Density Zones. 10. Apply maximum floor area standards for townhouses to the entire site as allowed by state middle housing requirements, rather than individual townhouse lots, by referencing the term "townhouse project" within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.d Density Districts; 3. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 4. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 5. Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iv Residential High-Density Zones. 11. Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.e.iii Low-Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 5 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) Medium-Density Zones; 3. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.3.e.iv High-Density Zones. 12. Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects, and exempt cottage clusters from maximum lot coverage standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in the following sections: 1. Maximum Lot Coverage standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.f.i Low-Density Zones; 2. R-5 Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.i 3. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii 4. R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table; Table 50.04.001-9 5. R-DD Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(4) 6. R-2 Lot Coverage Table; and Table 50.04.001-12 7. R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions. LOC 50.04.001.3.d.ii(3); 50.04.001.3.d.ii(4) 13. Clarify maximum impervious surface standards for duplexes, LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(2) triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects in the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 14. Clarify which maximum impervious surface standards apply LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(3) to cottage clusters by cross-referencing the use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 15. Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft. to 25 ft. within the following sections to comply with state minimum requirements: 1. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 2. Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots figure. Figure 50.04.001-11[5] 16. Eliminate references to single-family zones in the solar LOC 50.04.004.b adjustments standards related to off-site shade, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; and Table 50.06.001-1; 2. Applicability standards for Structure Design — LOC 50.06.001.2.a.i Residential Zones. 18. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing LOC 50.06.001.2.a single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 6 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. (Building design standards would apply to portions of dwellings that are expanded or additions.) 19. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Roof Design standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.3.a.i 2. On-Site Circulation — Bikeways, Walkway, and LOC 50.06.003.3.a Accessways; 3. Street Connectivity; LOC 50.06.003.4.a.iii 4. Transit System; LOC 50.06.003.5.a 5. Site Design - Standards for Installation and LOC 50.06.004.1.c.iii Construction; 6. Solar Access; LOC 50.06.007.1.b 7. Definition of Floor Area. LOC 50.10.003.2 20. Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not LOC 50.06.001.3.b scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 21. Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply LOC 50.06.001.3.c equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 22. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in applicable zones: 1. Garage appearance and location standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.i 2. Driveway width limitations; LOC 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(a); 3. Driveway grade standards. 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(b) LOC 50.06.003.2.b.iii(1); 50.06.003.2.b.iii(3) 23. Modify the following garage standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade: 1. Garage setback standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(1) 2. Garage width standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(2) 3. Garage appearance standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(3) 4. Garage window standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii 5. Garage location standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.ii(2) 6. Garage window standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iii Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 7 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 7. Garage setback standards in the R-6 Zone; and LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iv 8. Garage appearance standards in the R-6 Zone. LOC 50.06.001.4.b.v 24. Apply garage appearance and location standards to parcels LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii of less than 50 feet in width. 25. Modify general off-street parking requirements to permit Table 50.06.002-3 one space per unit for middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 26. Modify parking dimension standards to apply equally to LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi(2) single-family and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 27. Specify that on-lane parking spaces located on an access LOC 50.06.003.1.d.iii lane may be used to meet minimum parking requirements for middle housing on flag lots served by the access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 28. Limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width LOC to no wider than the associated garage opening. 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(d) 29. Apply the exception from the hard pavement requirement LOC 50.06.003.2.c.vi(2) for driveways equally to duplexes and single-family residences, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 30. Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code, and remove the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Standards for Access Lanes; and LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii 2. Standards for Approval of Development Which LOC 50.06.003.4.c.v Requires the Construction of a Street. 31. Specify that duplexes may be permitted on flag lots served LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii by an access lane, but not other middle housing types, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 32. Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached LOC 50.03.003.1.e townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use- Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section. 33. Clarify that the garage wall facing street standard does not LOC 50.06.001.4.a.ii apply to garage walls containing the garage opening, as these are now addressed within the new garage appearance and location standards. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 8 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapter 50.05) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Exempt middle housing created through conversions or additions LOC 50.05.001.5a.ii to a single-family dwelling in the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay from the requirement to submit a Plantings and Buffering plan, in order to treat single-family and middle housing equally, as required for state minimum compliance. 2. Clarify that the Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) District LOC 50.05.004.13.b Clear and Objective Standards may be applied equally to any new dwelling—including detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that the following design standards within the Old Town Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(f)(iii) 2. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) 3. Massing/Composition standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(b) 4. Window standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(f)(ii) 5. Building Height standards for the Craftsman Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(a) 6. Massing/Composition standards for the Craftsman Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(b) 7. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style; and LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 8. Required design elements for the Craftsman Style. LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(j) 4. Modify the following standards within the Old Town Overlay to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) and 2. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style. LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 5. Clarify that the design standards specific to multi-family LOC 50.05.006.9; dwellings in the Old Town Overlay are not applicable to middle 50.05.006.9.a; housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.05.006.9.b; 6. Clarify that design standards apply to both detached single-family LOC 50.05.007.3.c.i(1); and middle housing dwellings equally in the Lake Grove Village 50.05.007.3.c.ii(5) Center Overlay (LGVCO). 7. Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to detached single- LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6) family dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO, as required for state minimum compliance. 8. Limit the applicability of density transfer provisions in the LOC 50.05.010.4.c.iii Sensitive Lands Overlay to single-family dwellings and duplexes. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 9 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 9. Modify the bonding period standards for the Sensitive Lands LOC 50.05.010.4.g.ix(4) Overlay District to apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. 10. Allow for duplex development within the Resource Protection LOC 50.05.010.6.a.iii (RP) District, but not other middle housing types. 11. Allow for duplex development on sites otherwise encumbered LOC 50.05.010.6.d.i by an RP District, but not other middle housing types. REVIEW PROCEDURE CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.06 & 50.07) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; Table 50.06.001-1; 2. Ministerial Development Classification; and LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(1); 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3); 3. Review Criteria for Ministerial Development. LOC 50.07.003.13.e.ii(8) 2. Clarify that duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (middle housing) where allowed in the following districts are not classified as ministerial development: 1. Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use Districts; and LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(h) 2. Special Purpose Districts. LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(g) 3. Clarify that minor development procedures will apply equally to LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(a); single-family residences and middle housing in the R-DD Zone, to 50.07.003.14.a.ii(2); align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.07.003.14.a.ii(5); 4. Clarify that conversions from detached single-family to middle LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(b) housing are classified as ministerial development in the R-DD Zone, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.05, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that provisions related to the damage and reconstruction LOC 50.01.006.4 of nonconforming structures also apply to middle housing. 2. Revise provisions for nonconforming lots to allow for duplex LOC 50.01.006.5.a construction, but not to allow the construction of other middle housing types, on nonconforming lots, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that, for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards may Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 10 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 apply only to the newly-added portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted, within the following sections: 1. LGVCO Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(7) Improvements standards; and 2. Residential Zones Structure Design Applicability standards. LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iv 4. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single- LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, C-1, C-3, and C-5 Community Culture Civic Engagement Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 Historic Preservation Policy 3 Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e) Complete Neighborhoods & Housing Policies A-2, A-3, A-4, B-1 and C-7 Connected Community Policies B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-8 and F-2 Community Health and Public Safety Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10 Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies 8 and 9 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policies 2 and 3 Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policies 2 and 6 Sound Quality Policies 1 and 5 Evergreen Neighborhood Plan Land Use: Residential Goal, Policies 1 and 2 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Housing, Land Use, and Neighborhood Character Goals 1 and 2, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policies 3, 4, and 10 Housing Policy 1, 2, 3 and 4 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 11 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan Housing/ Residential Land Use Policies 3 and 4 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Housing/Residential Land Use Policies 1, 2, 3, 6 Old Town Neighborhood Plan Goals 1, 2 3 and 5 Policies 1, 3 and 8 Palisades Neighborhood Plan Land Use Policies 2, 3 and 4 Waluga Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 2 Housing Goals 1 and 3, Policy 4 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof LOC 50.07.003.3.c Notice of Public Hearing LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions of Approval LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals LOC 50.07.003.15 Major Development (excluding subsection d.ii) LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial Comp. Plan Map, Zone Map, and CDC Amendments to be processed via Major Developments Procedures) LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision C. Metro Code Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 7: Housing Choice [MC 3.07.730] D. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660, Division 12) OAR 660-12-0060(1) E. LCDC Administrative Rules 660-046 House Bill 2001 Rules 660-046-0030 Implementation of Middle Housing Ordinances III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 2019 the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 2001 (HB 2001) , which requires cities over 25,000 in population to allow the development of"middle housing"— including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters—within zones that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 12 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Consistent with the City Council goal to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change", and the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability," the Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to prepare amendments to the Community Development Code (code) to meet the minimum compliance provisions outlined in the administrative rules for middle housing contained within Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (Division 46). House Bill 2001 HB 2001 is a landmark legislation with significant implications for residential zoning and development in Lake Oswego. Throughout 2020, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) led three rulemaking efforts to help cities comply with the requirements of HB 2001. This work included the creation of model codes, establishing compliance standards, and a process and criteria for the evaluation of city plans to address infrastructure needs. On December 9, 2020, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted the implementing rules for HB 2001 (Division 46), which outline the "minimum compliance standards" large cities—including the City of Lake Oswego—must apply to middle housing to comply with HB 2001. They also adopted a Large Cities Middle Housing Model Code to guide the development of all middle housing types in large-sized cities. Large cities may choose to regulate middle housing using the Large Cities Middle Housing Model Code, the minimum compliance standards, or a combination of the two. Under Division 46, a city may also adopt alternative siting or design standards other than those authorized by the Oregon Administrative Rules, under certain conditions. (OAR 660-046-0235). It is important to note that siting and design standards do not include minimum lot or parcel size and maximum density requirements. If a city is interested in proposing an alternative siting or design standard, they must submit to DLCD findings and analysis demonstrating that the proposed standard(s) will not, individually or cumulatively, cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of middle housing. To so demonstrate to DLCD, a city must consider how a standard or standards, individually and cumulatively, affect the following factors in comparison to what is would otherwise be required under the Oregon Administrative Rules for siting and design standards: a. The total time and cost of construction, including design, labor, and materials; b. The total cost of land; c. The availability and acquisition of land, including areas with existing development; d. The total time and cost of permitting and fees required to make land suitable for development; e. The cumulative livable floor area that can be produced; and f. The proportionality of cumulative time and cost imposed by the proposed standard(s) in relationship to the public need or interest the standard(s) fulfill. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 13 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 The Council and Planning Commission discussed this section in regards to multiple different standards but did not support pursuing alternative siting or design standards under this option. Approach and Public Involvement In late 2019, City Council requested that staff monitor the State of Oregon's rulemaking process regarding the implementation of HB 2001. Staff went on to track numerous meetings of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC) and other technical advisory committees established by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Staff provided monthly written and oral reports to the Planning Commission on the state's rulemaking progress and key issues related to the bill. On December 9, 2020, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted the implementing rules for HB 2001 (Division 46), which provide the roadmap for local governments' compliance with HB 2001. Following the adoption of these rules, the Planning Commission hosted several presentations in order to learn directly from professionals who were involved in the development of HB 2001 or have specific expertise related to middle housing. This included presentations from: • DLCD staff, on the Division 46 rules; • A representative of the Fair Housing Council of Oregon on the social dimensions of middle housing policy; • A representative of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and a local builder, on the development of duplexes and townhomes in Lake Oswego; and • City Engineer Erica Rooney, on infrastructure planning for middle housing and the state's Infrastructure-Based Time Extension Request (IBTER) process. Phase One: Information Gathering and Research During this time period, City staff and a consultant team led by Cascadia Partners engaged in the first phase of middle housing implementation work, which was primarily oriented around research and information gathering. The process was publicly initiated through a "kickoff meeting" in January 2020 to inform neighborhood association chairs of engagement opportunities available during the first phase of work. All City-recognized neighborhood associations were invited to participate. These engagement opportunities included Neighborhood Character Interviews that were coordinated with representatives from 17 different neighborhood associations, as well as a Neighborhood Character Survey that received 880 responses reflecting input from residents of all 28 Lake Oswego neighborhoods. The results of this work provided a rich source information that allowed City staff to better understand the physical characteristics that residents value the most in their respective neighborhoods. These results are summarized and reflected in the Neighborhood Character Report document produced by Cascadia Partners, which includes a qualitative analysis of the development patterns, character and architectural history of Lake Oswego neighborhoods based on extensive research and analysis. Other phase one work products by Cascadia Partners included: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 14 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 • Neighborhood Conditions Analysis—a quantitative analysis of existing neighborhood conditions in Lake Oswego; • Plan and Code Audit Memo—identification of Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code sections that must be updated for compliance with HB 2001; and • Middle Housing Opportunities Report— recommendation of concepts and alternatives for amending the Comprehensive Plan and CDC for middle housing, consistent with HB 2001. These reports and other background documents are available on the project web page referenced at the end of this Council Report. The Council and the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff and consultant Jamin Kimmel, project manager with Cascadia Partners, at their joint study session on May 18, 2021. This presentation covered the initial findings as outlined in the phase one work products, and proposed a process for using that information to develop code amendments in compliance with HB 2001 that achieve the Council goal. This presentation was followed by two Planning Commission work sessions on May 24 and June 14, 2021, where the Commission reviewed the phase one findings and refined a work plan for phase two based on Council direction. Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee At their meeting on June 15, 2021, the Council formally appointed the Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) to provide high-level policy guidance to the Planning Commission for the development of draft code amendments to comply with HB 2001. The Committee was comprised of a balanced membership of 13 voting members representing a diverse set of interests. The MHCAC conducted six meetings between July and October 2021; materials distributed in advance of each meeting were also distributed to members of the public, and are accessible on the City website. Invitations to each meeting were also made available to members of the public, and recordings of each meeting were posted to the City's YouTube page. During these meetings, MHCAC members considered code concepts related to the following key issues outlined in the MHCAC Key Issues & Work Plan: 1. Preservation of existing residential structures; 2. Scale and character of new middle housing; 3. Runoff and stormwater impacts of middle housing; and 4. Affordability and accessibility of middle housing. MHCAC members were provided with a series of memos— referred to as "Key Issue Memos" — which contained summaries of the above issues and lists of relevant questions for the group to consider. Polling was conducted by staff at MHCAC meetings in an attempt to reach an agreement on the questions raised in the Key Issue memos; each memo has since been updated to include polling results and a summary of the MHCAC's discussion on each question or code concept. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 15 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 At a joint study session on November 16, 2021, the Council and Planning Commission received a presentation from staff, MHCAC Chair Randy Arthur, and MHCAC Co-Chair Lisa Strader covering the MHCAC process and recommendations. At this meeting, the Council directed staff (with Planning Commission and public input) to prepare code amendments for the MHCAC code amendment recommendations that are required to be adopted by the state-mandated deadline of June 30, 2022. Phase Two: Code Development and Refinement In early December 2021, the City hosted a virtual Community Forum in order to provide information on the City's approach to middle housing and to allow for public input before drafting recommended code changes. This effort included launching an accompanying StoryMap and Survey that was made available to the public until the end of 2021. More recently, the Planning Commission held four work sessions to discuss remaining policy questions related to proposed code amendments necessary for compliance with House Bill 2001. The first of these work sessions, held on December 13, 2021, focused on an initial package of code amendments prescribed by the state where there is little to no flexibility for the adoption of other types of standards. The work session held on January 10, 2022, included a detailed discussion of the options available to the City related to the adoption of design and dimensional standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses. At their work session on January 24, 2022, the Planning Commission discussed options available to the City related to design and dimensional standards for cottage clusters. The work session on February 14, 2022, was focused on development review processes for middle housing. Code amendment recommendations developed by staff under the guidance of the Planning Commission were then presented to City Council at their meeting on February 15, 2022. Per the above-stated Council initiative, the proposed middle housing code amendments have been drafted to comply with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 while maintaining consistency with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On March 30, 2022, public notice of the proposed CDC text amendments and Planning Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review. B. ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) Notice The City followed the procedures required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) for notification of the owners of property potentially affected by changes that "amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone." In addition to complying with the requirements of House Bill 2001 by Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 16 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 allowing middle housing in any zone that permits attached single-family dwellings, the proposed amendments also prohibit telecommunications facilities from being located on parcels containing existing triplexes or quadplexes (LOC 50.03.002— Standards for Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses), apply Garage Appearance and Location standards to parcels with a width of less than 50 ft. (LOC 50.06.001— Building Design), and modify garage appearance and location standards in residential zones— including window/fenestration, setbacks, and other garage appearance requirements -to apply differently based on the width of the garage relative to the facade. (LOC 50.06.001— Building Design) The notice was mailed to property owners within all of the City's residential zones. C. DLCD and Metro Notices Pursuant to ORS 197.610 and LOC 50.003.07.16.c, staff has provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Staff notified Metro as required by Metro Code 3.07.820(a). V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA A. CLASSIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS AS A LEGISLATIVE DECISION The proposed amendments require a "legislative decision", subject to LOC 50.07.003.16, because the changes to the Community Development Code apply to a large number of properties. A legislative decision is generally a policy decision which is up to the discretion of the City Council, but shall: i. Comply with any applicable state law; ii. Comply with any applicable statewide planning goal or administrative rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197. and iii. In the case of a legislative amendment to this Community Development Code, comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are listed in Applicable Regulations, above, and are addressed in Sections B-E. B. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff has identified the following Comprehensive Plan Policies applicable to this proposal. Following each policy or group of policies is a response: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 17 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Land Use Planning Development (Community Development Code) Policies A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6 Development Review Policies B-7, B-8 and B-10 Design Standards and Guidelines Policies C-1, C-3, and C-5 Development (Community Development Codel Policy A-1: Maintain land use regulations and standards to: a. Ensure the provision of park and open space lands, and protection of natural resources; b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; c. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods; d. Provide for the implementation of adopted neighborhood plans; e. Provide for necessary public facilities and services; f. Protect life and property from natural hazards; g. Promote architectural and site design quality; h. Increase opportunities for alternate means of transportation; and i. Enhance opportunities for mixed use development*in Employment Centers, Town Centers, Commercial Corners, and appropriately zoned areas within Neighborhood Villages. Findings: HB 2001 is a law passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2019 to increase housing choice and supply. The bill and the state rules implementing it (Oregon Administrative Rules 660, Division 46) require large cities, which the legislature defined as all cities with populations of 25,000 or larger, and all cities within the Portland metro area with populations of 1,000 or larger, including the City of Lake Oswego, to amend their land use regulations to allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses in residential areas where detached single-family homes are allowed. These housing types are referred to as "middle housing" because they contain more dwelling units than a single-family house and less units than a multi-family residential building. Many of the Design and Dimensional and Overlay Items for Middle Housing apply the same dimensional and design standards that apply to single-family dwellings to middle housing, and are intended to maintain consistency with Lake Oswego's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. The amendments do not affect any regulation that implements: the provision of park and open space lands or the protection of natural resources; adopted neighborhood plans; the provision of necessary public facilities and services; the protection of life and property from natural hazards; the provision of opportunities for alternate means of Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 18 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 transportation; or the provision of opportunities for mixed use development. The City's acknowledged regulations implementing these policies will remain in effect with no change in applicability. The amendments are not site-specific and will have no significant effect on the amount of traffic on the existing transportation system. According to a market analysis prepared by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, middle housing is expected to comprise not more than one percent of all new dwellings created on buildable lands through infill and redevelopment, and not more than three percent of new dwellings on vacant lands. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. The amendments include enhanced design standards for driveways and garages to better address the potential increased visual prominence of front-facing garages and driveways. They also include new dimensional and design standards for cottage clusters that have been drafted to maintain consistency with the City's existing sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. All new or modified design standards are intended to ensure middle housing is as attractive as feasible without unreasonable cost or delay. This policy is met. Policy A-2: Ensure that land use regulations have sufficient flexibility to allow developers and the City to propose measures to: a. Adapt development to unique and difficult site conditions; b. Preserve open space and natural resources; and, c. Avoid negative impacts on surrounding properties. Findings: Many of the proposed amendments are specifically tailored to allow flexibility and provide clarity for developers and City staff with respect to middle housing regulations. The amendments comply with HB 2001 and will offer a variety of living styles and choices and help accommodate Lake Oswego's housing needs. They allow developers to apply the City's existing land use regulations for detached single-family dwellings to middle housing, including all provisions that allow development to adapt to unique and difficult site conditions. These amendments will not substantially change how the existing Code preserves open space and natural resources, and was drafted to avoid negative impacts of development on surrounding properties to the fullest extent feasible under Division 46. This policy is met. Policy A-3: Ensure high-quality building and site design through the application of clear and objective design standards for residential development, and design review; utilize the development review process for commercial, industrial, and institutional development to ensure high-quality building and site design and overall appearance. Findings: All amendments have specifically been drafted to be clear and objective in order to ensure high-quality middle housing building and site design. The amendments will modify the applicability of design review processes for middle housing by subjecting Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 19 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 them to the same ministerial review process that applies to single-family dwellings, as required by Division 46. The amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the development review process for commercial, industrial, and institutional development. The City's acknowledged regulations implementing the development review process for commercial, industrial, and institutional development will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Policy A-6: Require that residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary not exceed the capacity of planned public facilities and services. Findings: The amendments will modify the residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary ("USB") by exempting duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density requirements, applying a maximum density for townhouses of four times the maximum density allowed for single family dwellings in the same zone, and allowing middle housing development in many areas where it is not currently permitted. The amendments do not permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services within the USB. This policy is met. Development Review Policy B-7:Allow development within the designated density range when the development is in compliance with code standards that ensure: a. Adequate public facilities and services can be provided; and b. Negative impacts can be resolved. Findings: The amendments do not affect any regulation intended to resolve negative impacts related to development within the designated density range. The City's acknowledged clear and objective standards intended to resolve negative impacts related to development within the designated density range will remain in effect with no change in applicability. Regarding standards to ensure that adequate public facilities and services can be provided for development within the designated density range, see responses to Policies A-1 and A-6, above. This policy is met. Policy 8-8:Allow development of permitted uses on legally created non-conforming lots subject to all applicable land use regulations. Findings: The amendments maintain existing regulations that implement the development of permitted uses on legally created non-conforming lots subject to all applicable land use regulations. The amendments will also allow for the development of duplexes on non-conforming lots, as required pursuant to Division 46, such that duplexes will be considered a permitted use on legally created non-conforming lots. The amendments do not allow other forms of middle housing on non-conforming lots. This policy is met. Policy B-10: Maintain land use regulations and development standards that require new residential subdivisions and developments of four or more units to address all of the following design criteria: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 20 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 a. Preservation of required open space and natural resources; b. Provision of a street system which provides efficient connection to higher order streets and major activity centers; c. Development of transit opportunities appropriate to the scale and character of the development; d. Development of a safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation system; e. Management of surface water and storm drainage consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan; f. Assurance of privacy and quiet for future residents and abutting properties; g. Balance energy conservation measures such as energy efficient design and solar access with the preservation of trees and the planting of new trees to provide summer cooling; h. Buffering and screening from adjacent uses and streets; i. Building placement and locational relationships; j. Provision of adequate emergency vehicle access; k. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods. Findings: Under HB 2001, local jurisdictions are not permitted to apply different design standards to middle housing than are applied to detached single-family dwellings. Therefore, in order to comply with Division 46, the City will no longer require new residential developments of four dwelling units (fourplexes) that qualify as middle housing to address the same design criteria as multi-family residential developments. Triplex and fourplex proposals will be permitted to address all design criteria to the same extent that is required for detached single-family dwellings. These amendments will not substantially change how the existing Code applies design criteria to multi- family residential developments of five dwellings or more, including those listed above. Design Standards and Guidelines Policy C-1: Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, materials and architectural design; b. Landscaping; c. Buffering and screening between differing land uses; d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment; and, e. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments either do not impact or help refine and clarify the existing code's design and dimensional regulations and standards listed under this policy. Proposed amendments that involve changes to this policy include: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 21 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. General Item 2 allows for the development of all required middle housing types in detached single-family residential districts; the Review Procedure Items further specify that middle housing development will no longer be subject to minor development design review procedures and will instead be a ministerial decision in these areas (with the exception of the R-DD Zone). The Design and Dimensional Standard and Overlay District Items add design and dimensional standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code, and apply the same standards that implement the size, scale, bulk, color, materials, and architectural design of single-family dwellings to other middle housing types in all applicable zones. Similarly, existing single-family regulations related to landscaping, buffering and screening between different land uses, measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment, and traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods will now apply to middle housing. These items also include enhanced design standards for driveways and garages to better address the potential increased visual prominence of front-facing garages and driveways. All new or modified design standards are intended to ensure middle housing is as attractive as feasible without unreasonable cost or delay, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. This policy is met. Policy C-3: Ensure through development and design standards that both public and private developments enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. Findings: Staff finds that many of the proposed Design and Dimensional Items for Middle Housing will ensure that private developments enhance the aesthetic quality of the community by applying the same dimensional and design standards that apply to detached single-family dwellings to middle housing. Additionally, the aesthetic quality of developments will be further enhanced by the proposed improvements to the garage location and appearance standards that are designed to mitigate the potential negative visual impacts of large garages and driveways on narrow townhouse lots. This policy is met. Policy C-5:Adopt and maintain clear and objective standards for needed housing, pursuant to state law. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments have specifically been drafted to maintain the City's existing clear and objective standards for middle housing, pursuant to state law, and to generally ensure that the same regulations that apply to single- family dwellings apply equally to middle housing. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with these Land Use Planning policies. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 22 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Community Culture Civic Engagement Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 Historic Preservation Policy 3 Civic Engagement Policy 1: Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort, and ensure those affected by a Plan have opportunities to participate in the planning process. Policy 3: Utilize City boards and commissions, neighborhood associations, and other community groups to ensure a diverse and geographically broad range of citizen input in land use issues Policy 4: Provide opportunities for citizens to engage in land use planning and decision- making, including opportunities for individual citizens who may not otherwise participate. Policy 5: Ensure direct and ongoing two-way communications between the City and Lake Oswego citizens regarding land use issues. Policy 8: Define how the public will be engaged in each phase of the land use planning process at the beginning of the process. Policy 9: Utilize broadly representative, special citizen advisory bodies to provide input on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and other related land use planning matters. Policy 11: Design and implement the Citizen Involvement Program in ways that foster civility and respect for all who participate. Findings: The Community Development Code, which implements the Comprehensive Plan, contains requirements for a citizen involvement program that clearly defines the procedures by which the general public will be notified in the on-going legislative land use planning process and enables citizens to comprehend the issues and become involved in the development of land use policy. The proposed code amendments were identified over the past year based on input from the community, including neighborhood representatives, builders, developers, housing advocates, architects, real estate professionals, staff, members of numerous City advisory boards, the Planning Commission, and City Council. The Commission received a total of fourteen updates from staff regarding the rulemaking process for House Bill 2001 throughout 2020 and early 2021. The Commission then held a total of nine work sessions where public input on the scope of the proposed code amendments was accepted, from March 2021 through February 2022. Additionally, the City Council appointed an Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) with a balanced membership of 13 voting members representing a diverse set of interests to provide high-level policy guidance on key issues related to middle housing implementation required under HB 2001; the MHCAC conducted six Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 23 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 meetings between July and October 2021, where public input was accepted, in order to develop conceptual code amendment recommendations related to middle housing implementation. All required notification measures and opportunities for input as specified in the Code were provided during this process, including notice to all Neighborhood Associations and business organizations. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, the process followed for these amendments complies with the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed amendments that involve changes to citizen involvement include: General Item 2; Review Procedure Items 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Non-Conforming Structure Items 2, 3, and 4. General Item 2 allows for the development of all required middle housing types in detached single-family residential districts; the Review Procedure Items further specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision in these areas (with the exception of the R-DD Zone). Non-Conforming Lot/Structure Item 2 revises provisions for nonconforming lots to allow for duplex construction, but not to allow the construction of other middle housing types, on nonconforming lots. Non-Conforming Lot/Structure Item 3 clarifies that, for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards may apply only to the newly- added portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted. Non-Conforming Structure Item 4 clarifies that remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. Staff finds that all of these items were required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, and that the amendments otherwise maintain existing regulations that implement citizen engagement within the City. The policies are met. Historic Preservation Policy 1: Preserve, enhance, and protect Lake Oswego's historic resources through procedures and standards designed to identify, restore and protect structures, sites, objects and districts of historic and cultural value within the city. Findings: The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the preservation, enhancement, or protection of Lake Oswego's historic resources, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing the preservation, enhancement, or protection of historic resources remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Conclusion: The City has provided adequate opportunities for public participation consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, and the proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the preservation, enhancement, or protection of Lake Oswego's historic resources. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Community Culture Policies. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 24 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 Goal 2, Policy 4 (d and e) Goal 1: Policy 1:Adopt implementation measures and guidelines that ensure: a. New development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height, and setbacks. b. New development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas: i. Promotes a safe and attractive pedestrian environment; ii. Reflects high-quality aesthetics, considering size, scale and bulk, color, materials, architectural style and detailing, and landscaping; and iii. Includes buffering and screening to protect residential uses and neighborhoods. Findings: All Design and Dimensional Items have specifically been drafted to ensure that new middle housing development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height, and setbacks. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-3 and C-1, above. The amendments do not affect any regulation that implements development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas. The City's acknowledged regulations implementing development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas will remain in effect with no change in applicability. With these amendments, the Code will also continue to promote quality pedestrian environments and aesthetics while ensuring residential uses are buffered. This policy is met. Policy 2:Adopt and maintain design standards and provide incentives that encourage exceptional or high-quality design. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy and have been drafted to encourage exceptional or high-quality middle housing design. Proposed amendments that involve changes to this policy include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-3 and C-1, above. This policy is met. Policy 7: Enhance the unique character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods and commercial districts as the City grows and changes by adopting plans, codes, guidelines and other implementation measures. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy and have been specifically drafted to enhance the unique character of Lake Oswego's existing single-family neighborhoods as they transition to allowing middle housing. Proposed amendments that involve changes to this policy include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 25 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. This policy is met. Policy 8: Protect Lake Oswego's village aesthetic by adopting and maintaining implementation measures and guidelines that preserve the residential character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods, safeguard places of historical significance (See also, Community Culture: Historic and Cultural Resources), and encourage urban form that results in pedestrian friendly retail districts in existing commercial areas, including buildings oriented to the street and active ground floor uses. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy and have been specifically drafted to preserve the residential character of Lake Oswego's existing single-family neighborhoods as they transition to allowing middle housing. Proposed amendments that involve changes to standards intended to preserve the residential character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the safeguarding of places of historical significance or the design of existing commercial areas, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing the safeguarding of places of historical significance or the design of existing commercial areas will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Policy 9: Preserve the visual attractiveness of the community by limiting adverse visual impacts to the City's public spaces and streetscape. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments have been drafted to limit potential adverse visual impacts of middle housing to the City's public spaces and streetscape. Specifically, Items 22 [D], 23 [D], and 24 [D] enhance existing garage appearance standards in order to mitigate adverse visual impacts that could result in the design of garages for middle housing development, which will require more parking spaces than detached single-family dwellings. Proposed amendments that involve changes to standards intended to limit adverse visual impacts to the City's public spaces and streetscape include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 26 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Goal 2: Policy 4 (d and e): Promote carefully organized patterns of growth through land use regulations, standards, and incentives that: // d. Provide design guidelines that enhance and preserve the unique character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods and commercial districts. e. Provide opportunities for local economic growth. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments have been drafted to enhance and preserve the unique character of Lake Oswego's residential neighborhoods by generally applying the City's existing land use regulations for detached single-family dwellings to middle housing. Proposed amendments that involve changes to standards intended to enhance and preserve the unique character of Lake Oswego's residential neighborhoods include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements standards for commercial districts or opportunities for economic growth, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing standards for commercial districts and opportunities for economic growth will remain in effect with no change in applicability. By amending its code to provide for additional housing options, including smaller, more economical dwelling units, the City is also providing opportunities for workforce housing and supporting local economic growth. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with these Inspiring Spaces and Places policies. Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Policies A-2, A-3, A-4, B-1 and C-7 Housing Location and Quality: Policy A-2: Develop and maintain regulations and standards that ensure residential densities are appropriately related to site conditions, including slopes, potential hazards, natural features, and the capacity of public facilities. Findings: The amendments will modify the residential densities allowed within the City by exempting duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density requirements, applying a maximum density for townhouses of four times the maximum density allowed for single family dwellings in the same zone, and allowing middle housing development in many areas where it is not currently permitted. The amendments will continue not to permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services. Other than these changes, which are required pursuant to Division 46, staff finds that the amendments will ensure residential densities are appropriately related to site Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 27 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 conditions, including slopes, potential hazards, natural features, and the capacity of public facilities. Policy A-3: Develop and maintain land use regulations and standards that promote orderly transitions and compatibility between different residential densities and other land uses, such as measures that address traffic and circulation, building and site design, buffering, screening, tree preservation and other landscape treatments. Findings: The existing Code includes standards that address traffic and circulation, building and site design, buffering, screening, tree preservation and other landscape treatments for residential uses. Many of the proposed Design and Dimensional Items will help to regulate building and site design for newly-allowed middle housing types in order to promote their compatibility with existing detached single-family dwellings. This policy is met. Policy A-4: Maintain land use regulations and standards that provide for mitigation of adverse impacts such as noise, traffic, privacy and visual aesthetics, on differing, adjacent land uses through site and building design. Findings: The existing Code regulations include standards that mitigate adverse impacts to noise, traffic, privacy and visual aesthetics on surrounding uses from new development. Design and Dimensional Item 1 [D] adds new design standards for cottage clusters that include standards for the buffering of parking, the design of required common courtyards, and other design standards intended to mitigate the impacts of a cottage cluster development on adjacent land uses. This policy is met. Housing Choice and Affordability: Policy B-1: Provide and maintain zoning and development regulations that allow the opportunity to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego residents. Findings: Many of the proposed amendments are specifically tailored to increase opportunities to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, as this was one of the fundamental objectives of House Bill 2001. The proposed amendments permit middle housing types in areas where they were previously not permitted, offering more opportunities to develop housing types containing two to eight dwelling units in areas that allow detached single-family dwellings. Staff finds that the proposed amendments will help to accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego residents by allowing an increased supply and variety of allowed housing types. This policy is met. Complete Neighborhoods: Policy C-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible with existing neighborhood character. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 28 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: The existing Code includes both zone dimensional and structure design standards that ensure compatible infill development. The proposed amendments will apply these standards to new middle housing infill development to continue to ensure the compatibility of different types of infill housing within established neighborhoods. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with Complete Neighborhoods and Housing policies. Connected Community Policies B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-8 and F-2 Transportation Choices: Policy 8-1: Provide land use patterns and promote public and private development that supports efficient transit service. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that provide land use patterns and promote public and private development that supports efficient transit service. The amendments are not site-specific and may be expected to promote development that supports efficient transit service by allowing for increased density within existing detached single-family residential neighborhoods, including areas adjacent to transit service. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Policy 8-2: Provide street and frontage improvements such as dedicated facilities, landscaping, and street lighting and permit amenities such as benches and shelters to encourage walking and biking as viable travel modes, particularly along corridors that serve the primary transit network and employment centers, town centers and neighborhood villages. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that provide street and frontage improvements such as dedicated facilities, landscaping, and street lighting and permit amenities such as benches and shelters to encourage walking and biking as viable travel modes. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Policy 8-3: Require development, redevelopment, and public transportation improvement projects to provide facilities that accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, particularly in areas with identified gaps in the transportation system and in all employment centers, town centers, neighborhood villages, commercial corners, and neighborhood commons. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 29 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that require development, redevelopment, and public transportation improvement projects to provide facilities that accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. In addition, according to OAR 660-046- 0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Efficiency: Policy C-1: Maintain arterial and major collector streets to planned level of service* standards, whenever practical. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards intended to maintain arterial and major collector streets to planned level of service standards, whenever practical. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Policy C-8: Plan 20 minute neighborhoods* to accommodate uses that efficiently meet many daily residential needs via short trips by any mode of travel. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that promote 20-minute neighborhoods to accommodate uses that efficiently meet many daily residential needs via short trips by any mode of travel. The amendments are not site-specific and may be expected to promote 20-minute neighborhoods by allowing for increased density within existing detached single- family residential neighborhoods including areas adjacent to uses that efficiently meet many daily residential needs. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Livability: Policy F-2: Mitigate the impacts of traffic on neighborhood collectors and higher classifications that bisect residential neighborhoods. Findings: The existing Code includes a number of standards intended to mitigate the impacts of traffic on neighborhood collectors and higher classifications that bisect residential neighborhoods. According to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 30 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the Connected Communities policies. Community Health and Public Safety Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policies 1, 2, 3, & 10 Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies 8 & 9 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policies 2 & 3 Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policies 2 & 6 Sound Quality Policies 1 & 5 Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policy 1: Maintain development standards and enter into agreements with other agencies when appropriate to promote efficient use of fire and police personnel,facilities, equipment and communication resources, and to allow fire and police personnel to respond to public safety needs within targeted response times. Findings: Design and Dimensional Items 30 and 31 will modify access lane regulations for flag lots in order to allow the development of duplexes on flag lots. These items are required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, which require cities to grant the same street frontage exceptions to single-family dwellings as are granted to duplexes. These items will not otherwise inhibit the efficient use of fire and police personnel, facilities, equipment and communication resources, and will continue to allow fire and police personnel to respond to public safety needs within targeted response times. This policy is met. Policy 2: Require police and fire protection to be considered in the development review process. Particular attention shall be given to: a. Fire hydrant locations and sufficient fire flows; b. Street layout and site design features that ensure emergency vehicle access and building identification; and c. Exterior lighting and landscape design. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that require police and fire protection to be considered in the development review process, per the above policy. The proposed amendments are not site-specific and will continue to allow police and fire protection to be considered in the development review process. This policy is met. Policy 3: Provide and maintain development standards and guidelines that promote Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.* Findings: The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements development standards and guidelines that promote Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, such as building and site design, including lighting, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing development standards and guidelines that Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 31 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 promote Crime Prevention through Environmental Design will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Policy 10: Update and maintain the site design and development standards to decrease and minimize the possibility of wildfires and their potential for destruction. Findings: The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements development standards to decrease and minimize the possibility of wildfires, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing development standards to decrease and minimize the possibility of wildfires will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policy 8: Provide and maintain development standards that promote Low Impact Development to improve water quality, reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and preserve open space. Findings: The existing Code includes a number of standards that promote Low Impact Development to improve water quality, reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and preserve open space. The proposed amendments will apply existing impervious surface standards that apply to detached single-family dwellings within certain Overlay Districts to middle housing. Further, Item 1 [D] adds new design standards for cottage clusters that include impervious surface limitations for common courtyards, which are required in a cottage cluster development. This will ensure that impervious surface limitations for cottage cluster common courtyards are applicable in many residential districts that do not otherwise apply impervious surface limitations to new dwellings today. This policy is met. Policy 9: Provide and maintain development standards that ensure public and private storm water systems are planned, developed, and maintained to prevent flooding, protect water quality, and preserve natural surface water systems to protect aquatic habitat. Findings: The existing Code includes a number of standards that ensure public and private storm water systems are planned, developed, and maintained to prevent flooding, protect water quality, and preserve natural surface water systems to protect aquatic habitat. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements this policy, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing this policy will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 32 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policy 2: Provide and maintain land use and development standards that require developers where legally permissible to: a. Modify, replace, renew, and extend the public water system as necessary to serve new development; b. Design and construct modifications, replacements, renewals, and extensions of the public water system to facilitate the orderly and efficient extension of public water service to future development; and c. Ensure access to all public water facilities as required by City codes and standards through the granting and recording of public utility easements. Policy 3: Require new development in Lake Oswego to connect to the municipal water system unless the development is within the service boundaries of another water district and that district is authorized to provide municipal water service within the City's Urban Services Boundary pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement. Findings (for 2 and 3): The existing Code includes a number of standards that require development to extend and connect to the public water system, ensuring orderly and efficient delivery of services per the above policy. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements water treatment and delivery, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing water treatment and delivery will remain in effect with no change in applicability. These policies are met. Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policy 2: Require all new development within the City to connect to the City's wastewater collection system and pay a system development charge. Policy 6: Prohibit the construction of structures that would prevent access to public sewer lines and easements. Findings (for 2 and 6): The existing Code includes a number of standards intended to implement wastewater collection and treatment per the above policy. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements wastewater collection and treatment, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing wastewater collection and treatment will remain in effect with no change in applicability. These policies are met. Sound Quality Policy 1: Preserve and maintain the quiet character of residential neighborhoods, public open spaces, natural parks and parks with natural elements through zoning regulations and development standards. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 33 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Policy 5: Maintain the quiet character of residential areas through regulations that address new development, infill, the interface between different types of abutting land uses and associated mechanical equipment through such regulations as adequate setback requirements, height restrictions, buffering and performance standards. Findings (for 1 and 5): The existing Code includes a number of standards intended to implement sound quality per the above policy, including setbacks, building (garage) design, and screening requirements. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements sound quality, except that screening requirements are proposed to be added for accessory structures in cottage cluster developments. The City's other acknowledged regulations implementing sound quality will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the Community Health and Public Safety policies. Neighborhood Plans Evergreen Neighborhood Plan Policy 2: Preserve the existing fabric of the neighborhood by developing incentives to remodel existing homes, where feasible, instead of tearing down and rebuilding single family, detached residential properties. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as an alternative to demolition, and as required by Division 46, are consistent with this policy. The policy is met. First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Parking Policy 5: Ensure adequate, but not excessive, off-street parking is provided for all land uses in First Addition/Forest Hills. Response: The proposed code changes reducing minimum parking requirements for middle housing may conflict with this policy; however, under Division 46, the City may not require more parking than allowed under state rules, and the proposed amendments comply with the minimum requirements of Division 46. This policy is preempted by Division 46. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 1 (First Addition): To the maximum extent feasible, single family housing shall be preserved and steps taken to preserve its amenities and value. Special attention should be given to insuring that adjacent higher density housing, if developed, will not adversely affect neighborhood single family development. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting middle housing outright in all residential zones may conflict with this First Addition policy as it applies to the neighborhood's R-6 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 34 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 zone. Some single family dwellings may be replaced with middle housing as property values continue to increase. As allowed by Division 46, the proposed amendments provide siting and design standards, including dimensional, parking, and building design requirements, for middle housing that are consistent with the standards that apply to single family development, which ensures middle housing will not adversely affect neighborhood single family development. Therefore, the second part of this policy is met, and the first part is not met but is preempted by Division 46. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 3 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Encourage owner-occupied housing in First Addition/Forest Hills. Findings: The proposed amendments will enable more types of owner-occupied housing, including development of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage cluster dwellings, which may be divided, per Senate Bill 458 (2021), to provide dwellings on individual lots. This policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 4 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Promote upgrading and remodeling of residential structures, rather than demolition and new construction. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as required by Division 46 are consistent with this policy as such conversions would include upgrading and remodeling of residential structures as an alternative to demolition. The policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 5 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Protect the character of the neighborhood by encouraging new residences and residential alterations to be compatible with the building size and proportion of existing dwellings. Findings: As allowed by Division 46, the proposed amendments provide siting and design standards, including dimensional and building design requirements, for new middle housing, including additions to existing dwellings, that are consistent with or (in the case of existing nonconforming dwellings) exceed the standards that apply to existing dwellings. This ensures middle housing building size and proportions will be compatible with existing dwellings. This policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 5 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Encourage a variety of housing types within First Addition/Forest Hills that is compatible with neighborhood character and design. Findings: The proposed amendments will enable more types of housing, including development of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage cluster dwellings, including multi-family dwellings and dwellings on individual lots subject to siting and design standards that are intended to maintain First Addition's/Forest Hills' neighborhood character and design. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 35 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 9 (First Addition and Forest Hills):Allow density within the neighborhood that is compatible with Comprehensive Plan Transportation policies, available street facilities, and actual developed densities, allows for structures that are compatible with neighborhood character, yet is supportive of local and regional transportation goals of encouraging walking, biking and transit use. Findings: The proposed amendments allow increased densities within walking distance of downtown Lake Oswego, thereby supporting local and regional transportation goals of encouraging alternatives to the automobile for short trips. The City also maintains a transportation system plan and capital improvement program which provide for sidewalk, pathway, and other street improvement projects to support increased densities and population growth. This policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 10(First Addition and Forest Hills): Expansion or change of non-conforming uses in First Addition/Forest Hills residential zones is discouraged due to noise, traffic, glare and appearance of structures which may be incompatible with abutting residential uses. Replacement of non-conforming uses with permitted uses is strongly encouraged. Findings: Any expansion or change to non-conforming uses (or development) is subject to the Community Development Code, specifically LOC 50.01.006, which regulates continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses and development. Generally, any new construction or addition creating middle housing (or any other development) must comply with current code. Remodels that maintain existing nonconformities are permitted provided there is no increase in nonconformity. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 2: Ensure that all new development in the Glenmorrie Neighborhood can be adequately served by the full range of public facilities and services. In particular, when evaluating development proposals recognize: a) The problems that the whole neighborhood has with surface water runoff and ensure that residential development, public facility and transportation projects do not contribute to existing, or create new surface water runoff and/or erosion problems; and b) That Glenmorrie Water Cooperative has limited water storage.* Land Use Planning Policy 3:The problems that the whole neighborhood has with surface water runoff and ensure that residential development, public facility and transportation projects do not contribute to existing, or create new surface water runoff and/or erosion problems; Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 36 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings (2 and 3): The proposed amendments do not affect compliance with policies 2 and 3, as any new development is required to comply with the City's stormwater code and connect to a public water system with capacity to serve the development. Under Division 46, where existing public infrastructure is not adequate to serve a middle housing development, the must be afforded the opportunity to correct the deficiency, and if they do not, the permit may be denied. This policy is met. Land Use Planning Policy 10: Maintain Glenmorrie Neighborhood's existing detached, single- family residential character and do not allow deterioration and/or demolition of existing homes as a reason for Plan and Zoning Map amendments to more intense land uses. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as required by Division 46 are consistent with this policy as such conversions would include upgrading and remodeling of residential structures as an alternative to demolition. The policy is met. Housing Policy 1: Preserve the neighborhood's "Country Lane/Estate"setting by: a) Recognizing that the Glenmorrie Neighborhood is most appropriate for low- density, detached single-family residential uses because of its historic large-lot, single- family development pattern, topography, natural resources/constraints, locational characteristics, level of available public facilities and services; //// e) Maintaining homeowner's sense of privacy and the natural buffers between properties. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting middle housing outright in residential zones, as required by Division 46, may conflict with policy 4. However, it is anticipated that single-family dwellings will continue to be the predominate housing type in the Glenmorrie neighborhood, and because the siting and design standards that apply to single-family dwellings will also apply to middle housing, neighborhood's "country lane/estate" setting and sense of privacy can be maintained even if the letter of the policy is not met. Housing Policy 2: Preserve the existing housing stock, and encourage the upgrade and remodeling of existing residential structures rather than demolition and new construction. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as required by Division 46 are consistent with this policy as such conversions would include upgrading and remodeling of residential structures as an alternative to demolition. The policy is met. Housing Policy 3: Utilize design compatibility standards to ensure that all, new residential development, and substantial remodeling projects, contribute to the design character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 37 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: Any substantial exterior remodel would be subject to the Community Development Code, including applicable siting and design standards, and regulations for the continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses and development (LOC 50.01.006). Generally, any new construction or addition creating middle housing (or any other development) must comply with current code. Remodels that maintain existing nonconformities are permitted provided there is no increase in nonconformity. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 4: Maintain residential areas at existing zone and plan density designations, except where an applicant demonstrates that a proposed zone/plan density change to R-0, R-2, R-2.5 or R-3 complies with the Comprehensive Plan criteria for zone changes and the following additional criteria... Land Use Planning Policy 5: Develop and implement strategies to maintain the affordability of neighborhood single-family housing. Findings (4 and 5): Division 46 rules preempt above policy 4 by requiring that cities allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, and cottage clusters (multiple detached dwellings) on residentially zoned lots subject to existing minimum lot area requirements or minimum standards under the rules. With respect to policy 5, Division 46 requires that cities subject to the rules consider strategies for increasing the supply of housing affordable to those earning less than the area median income. This requirement is addressed separately under the responses to the Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing policies, above. Sound Quality Policy 2: Locate, design and buffer new residential development in such a manner as to minimize the negative impacts of noise sources such as transportation facilities and active recreation uses, in accordance with existing building design and landscaping and buffering development standards. Findings: The proposed amendments do not change the locations where residential development is allowed. The same siting and design standards that apply to single-family development will also generally apply to middle housing, providing equivalent protections against the negative impacts of noise sources such as roads and parks. This policy is met. Sound Quality Policy 4: The City shall develop and consider for adoption, an ordinance requiring a noise mitigation report to be submitted as part of development applications when multi family or commercial land uses are proposed abutting single family residential land uses. The purpose of the report is to determine whether the new use will produce noise levels above the existing ambient residential noise levels. If noise levels associated with the new development will be higher than existing ambient levels, a noise mitigation plan shall be required. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 38 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: Adoption of noise mitigation standards and reporting requirements is not addressed by Division 46 and was not among the recommendations of the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee. Therefore, it is not proposed as part of these amendments. However, the proposed amendments do not preclude the City from considering an ordinance requiring noise mitigation with new development in the future. Division 46 requires that design standards for middle housing must also be applicable to single-family detached dwellings. This policy is met. Housina/Residential Land Use Policy 3:Allow development of residential infill lots within the Lake Forest Neighborhood subject to specific City of Lake Oswego design and development standards which ensure compatibility of resulting development with neighborhood design character. These standards include: a) Flag lots*, excluding the access way, be the same size as required by the existing zone; b)Adequate, but not excessive, vehicular access width to ensure efficient utilization of land; c) Demonstration that infill development will not preclude future development options on the parent parcel or on adjoining lands; d) Buffering and adequate separation of new buildings from existing residences. Findings: The proposed amendments are not contrary to the existing City codes that allow residential infill development subject to siting and design standards, ensuring compatibility of future development with neighborhood design character. The standards that currently apply to single-family development are being amended to also apply to middle housing. This policy is met. Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Housina/Residential Land Use Policy 3:Allow new development on new and existing residential lots* within the Lake Grove Neighborhood subject to specific design and development standards which ensure compatibility of resulting development with neighborhood design character. These standards shall require: a) Flag lots*, excluding the access way, be the same size as required by the existing zone; b)Adequate, but not excessive, vehicular access width to ensure efficient utilization of land; c) Building design standards and orientation, setback, lot coverage, and buffer requirements to ensure design compatibility with existing residences and other surrounding land uses; d) Demonstration that infill development will not preclude future development options on the parent parcel or on adjoining lands; e) Buffering and adequate separation of new buildings from existing residences; f) That any division of land to provide for infill development will result in 80% of the maximum allowed density*allowed on a parcel by the applicable zone designation. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 39 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Housing/Residential Land Use Policy 6: Ensure all new residential development, including secondary dwellings*and homes being substantially remodeled*contributes to the positive design character and qualities of Lake Grove's existing residential neighborhoods. This shall be accomplished through the application of design compatibility standards, which include: a) Height, bulk, and lot coverage standards to ensure new residential development does not conflict with the predominant scale and design characteristics of the neighborhood. b) Minimizing the impact of the automobile on the development site through residential design and development standards, which prescribe measures such as garage location, size of paved areas, driveway size and location, etc. c)Appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening between existing and proposed development; d) Preservation of existing mature canopy trees and other significant trees*and other landscape features* to the extent practicable; Findings (3 and 6): The proposed amendments are not contrary to the existing City codes allowing residential infill development subject to siting and design standards, and the tree code, ensuring compatibility of future development with neighborhood design character. The standards that currently apply to single-family development are being amended to also apply to middle housing. This policy is met. Old Town Neighborhood Plan Residential Land Use Policy 3: Generally, and in accordance with the policies of this plan, Old Town shall become higher density land use. However, existing neighborhood character shall be preserved as much as possible. a. Single-Family Housing Single-family housing, while not exclusive of other types of housing, shall have priority. Therefore, single family housing shall be preserved and steps taken to preserve its amenities and value. Where higher density land use is developed, special attention should be given to insuring that it will not adversely affect neighboring single family development. Single-family homes and new development shall be protected from the deteriorating effects of adjacent land uses, including in particular the commercial areas, and any open space areas which may be established. Particular attention shall be given to the effects of traffic, parking, noise, glare, air pollution and appearance of structures. New single-family construction shall be permitted on the existing platted 5,000 square foot lots. b. Multi-Family Residential Multi family use shall be permitted when it can be clearly demonstrated that other Old Town policies are being met by the proposal. Duplexes shall be permitted on the existing platted 5,000 square foot lots. Innovative design shall be encouraged to create duplexes which are compatible and harmonious with adjacent land uses. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 40 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 c. Residential Design Policy New residential construction of all types shall be encouraged. As noted under the Design District policies, all new construction of single family, duplex, zero lot line, multi family dwellings, and exterior modification to a structure housing a non- conforming use that requires a building permit, shall be subject to Development Review. Care should be taken to maintain certain existing physical attributes of the neighborhood which contribute to its special character, including but not limited to, unusual or special trees, landscaping, buildings and views. Residential Land Use Policy 8: Development Review Consideration shall be given to the relationships between new construction and adjacent land uses as well as to how the proposed development incorporates the desirable "small village" or "historic town"appearance of Old Town as illustrated in its pitched roofs, wood and masonry construction materials, and building proportions and massing typical of the Vernacular, Craftsman and Cape Cod styles. Residential Land Use Policy 9: Parcel Size Residential single family construction is to be permitted on lots or parcels of 5,000 square feet or more. The Development Review process should take account of the unusually small area of the lots in providing variances which may be requested for new single family uses. Duplexes are to be permitted on lots or parcels of 5,000 square feet or more. Except for structures which have been determined by the State or the National Register of Historic Places as being of historic significance, multi family construction is to be permitted on lots or parcels of a minimum of 15,000 square feet, which would allow seven units. Smaller parcels should be used for duplex or single family. The parcels should be shaped to minimize the number and length of property interfaces between adjacent uses to assure buffering landscaping can be installed. Historic structures may be converted to residential use. No minimum parcel size shall apply, but the project shall demonstrate compliance with all other applicable zoning requirements and development standards. Findings (3, 8, and 9): The proposed amendments are not contrary to the above policies, except that Division 46's minimum requirements preempt the part of policy 9 that prescribes a lot size of 15,000 square feet for multifamily developments. Further, under Division 46, there is not one type of housing that takes priority over any other. Cities must allow middle housing in the zones that allow detached single-family dwellings. The Old Town zone standards that currently apply to single-family development are being amended to also apply to middle housing. These policies are met. Palisades Neighborhood Plan Land Use Policy 3: Ensure development occurs and functions in a way that is compatible with the predominant character and conditions of the surrounding area and addresses residents' objectives as identified in the Neighborhood Character section of this plan. (See Land Use, Existing Conditions, Neighborhood Character) //// Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 41 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 b)Support ongoing observation and continued improvement to City development standards for residential infill design to ensure they have their intended effect. Land Use Policy 4: Provide for residents varied housing needs while ensuring the detached single-family character and scale of the Palisades neighborhood is not diminished. a) Be sensitive to a range of households'needs including families with school-age children, working couples and singles, seniors, people caring for aging parents and spouses, and people with disabilities. Findings (3.b and 4.a): The proposed amendments expand the range of housing that may develop consistent with identified housing needs and subject to siting and design standards that are intended to maintain existing neighborhood character. Under Division 46, there is not one type of housing that takes priority over any other. Cities must allow middle housing in the zones that allow detached single-family dwellings. These policies are met. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 2:As applicable by City Code, ensure that the architectural, site design and landscape character of new development and substantial remodel of structures within the Waluga Neighborhood is compatible* with the character of the existing neighborhood. Findings: Any new middle housing development or substantial exterior remodel adding middle housing would be subject to the Community Development Code, including applicable siting and design standards. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. Housing Policy 1: In accordance with the Community Development Code, do not allow the expansion or increase in non-conformance of a nonconforming use... Replacement of non- conforming uses with permitted uses is strongly encouraged. Findings: Any new middle housing development or substantial exterior remodel adding middle housing would be subject to the Community Development Code, including regulations for the continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses and development (LOC 50.01.006). Generally, any new construction or addition creating middle housing (or any other development) must comply with current code. Remodels that maintain existing nonconformities are permitted provided there is no increase in nonconformity. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. C. METRO CODE Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 7: Housing Choice[MC 3.07.730]: Requirements for Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 42 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Cities and counties within the Metro region shall ensure that their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances: (a) Include strategies to ensure a diverse range of housing types within their jurisdictional boundaries. (b) Include in their plans actions and implementation measures designed to maintain the existing supply of affordable housing as well as increase the opportunities for new dispersed affordable housing within their boundaries. (c) Include plan policies, actions, and implementation measures aimed at increasing opportunities for households of all income levels to live within their individual jurisdictions in affordable housing. Findings: These requirements are intended to ensure that Lake Oswego's implementing ordinances include strategies to ensure the production of a diverse range of housing types and increase opportunities for new affordable housing dispersed throughout the City. The proposed amendments further the City's compliance with Title 7 by allowing middle housing types in all areas zoned for single-family detached dwellings, and by establishing design and dimensional standards that meet the criteria in OAR 660-046-0220 and -0225 for standards that do not discourage development of Middle Housing through unreasonable cost or delay. See the response to the Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Policy B- 1, above, for more language addressing housing choice and affordability. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 7: Housing Choice. D. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (OAR 660 12-0060) The Transportation Planning Rule implements Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. If an amendment to a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the City must[either find that the land uses will be consistent with the planned function, capacity and performance of the transportation facility]or put in place measures[to improve the transportation facility], unless the amendment is allowed under section (3)(inadequate facilities but amendment does no additional harm], (9) [rezoning consistent with comprehensive plan and Transportation System Plan (TSP)], or(10) [map amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal mixed-use area (MMA), and other requirements]of this rule. Findings: According to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow Middle Housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 43 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 E. LCDC ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 660-046-0030 Implementation of Middle Housing Ordinances 2. In adopting or amending regulations or amending a comprehensive plan to allow Middle Housing, a Medium or Large City must include findings demonstrating consideration, as part of the post acknowledgement plan amendment process, of methods to increase the affordability of Middle Housing through ordinances or policies that include but are not limited to: a. Waiving or deferring system development charges; Findings: Since 2018, the City of Lake Oswego has exempted system development charges (SDCs) for multi-family developments of 20 or more units where at least 10% of the units are continuously rented, leased or made available for an amount of rent plus expenses associated with occupancy, such as utilities and fees, totaling not more than 30% of the income level that is 80% of area median income according to the Clackamas County Housing Authority's income limits for affordable housing, adjusted for household size. The Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee that convened over the summer of 2021 recommended extending these SDC waivers to middle housing developments as a part of the City's future work related to Housing Production Strategies for House Bill 2003. In February of 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2885 extending the above fee exemption to all dwelling types that meet the City's affordability criteria. b. Adopting or amending criteria for property tax exemptions under ORS 307.515 to ORS 307.523, ORS 307.540 to ORS 307.548 or ORS 307.651 to ORS 307.687 or property tax freezes under ORS 308.450 to ORS 308.481; and Findings: The Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee that convened over the summer of 2021 considered and ultimately recommended adopting criteria for property tax exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing development as a part of the City's future work related to Housing Production Strategies for House Bill 2003. The City may consider this further as part of its compliance with House Bill 2003. c. Assessing a construction tax under ORS 320.192 and ORS 320.195. 3. When a Medium or Large City amends its comprehensive plan or land use regulations to allow Middle Housing, the Medium or Large City is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Findings: The Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee that convened over the summer of 2021 considered and ultimately recommended adopting a construction excise tax to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing development as a part Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 44 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 of the City's future work related to Housing Production Strategies for House Bill 2003. The City may consider this further as part of its compliance with House Bill 2003. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with applicable LCDC Administrative Rules. VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2892, draft 3/7/2022 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, draft 3/7/2022 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] G. Letters [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can be found by visiting the project web page for LU 22-0007. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-projects (Under "Search" enter LU 22-0007, then press "Enter") Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 45 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 of LA os MEMORANDUM v AIM EGp� TO: Planning Commission/Commission for Citizen Involvement FROM: Erik Olson, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Staff Proposed Modifications to Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022 (LU 22-0007) DATE: April 1, 2022 MEETING DATE: April 11, 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&ACTION REQUESTED The purpose of this memo is to describe additional modifications proposed by staff to draft amendments to the Community Development Code ("development code", or "CDC") previously published on March 7, 2022. These amendments were proposed for the purpose of compliance with Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing" —including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family dwellings. The previously-released draft code amendments, which would enact these changes, are included in Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022. Since the publication of the draft code amendments, staff has identified several "follow-up" items that must be addressed for a variety of reasons, ranging from ensuring compliance with the minimum compliance provisions outlined in the administrative rules for middle housing contained within Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (Division 46) to ensuring consistency with the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability." These changes are discussed in more detail below, under Proposed Changes to Draft Code Amendments. These modifications are to replace specific portions of the previously-released draft code amendments, for consideration at the Public Hearing scheduled for April 11, 2022. DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT SECTIONS BEING MODIFIED The proposed changes to Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022 affect the following code amendments: 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 1 OF 13 Page 2 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add or reference design standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code within the following sections: 2. Use-specific standards for cottage clusters. LOC 50.03.003.1.d The proposed change to Item 1.2 [D] modifies the wording in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1): Clustered Parking (within the Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters) to clarify that parking in a cottage cluster development is required to be grouped in clusters. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 3. Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the following sections. to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 The proposed change to Item 3.3 [D] is intended to clarify that multi-family dwellings are not permitted in the R-W or R-2 Districts in the Residential Districts Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1). DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 17. Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; Table 50.06.001-1; The proposed change to Item 17.1 [D] would add "townhouses" to the list of minor development subject to building design standards in the Building Design Standards Applicability Table, to cover the circumstances when the development of three or townhouse more units could be processed as minor development (in commercial districts, industrial districts, mixed-use districts, or the R-DD Zone). The same language is also proposed to be included in the applicability statement for "Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-family Development Not Located in the FMU Zone, and Minor Development in the R-DD Zone Standards for Approval" (LOC 50.06.001.5(a)(ii)) for consistency. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 2 OF 13 Page 3 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 18. Clarify that internal conversions of existing single-family LOC 50.06.001.2.a dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. (Building design standards would apply to portions of dwellings that are expanded or additions.) The proposed change to Item 18 [D] would revise language in the Applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) to more directly align with the provisions of Division 46 that relate to middle housing conversions. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 20. Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not LOC 50.06.001.3.b scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The proposed changes to Item 20 [D] are intended to clarify that the minimum porch width requirements for corner lots in the R-6 front porch standards must be met along the narrow street frontage— not along the wide street frontage. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 21. Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply LOC 50.06.001.3.c equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The proposed change to Item 21 [D] further clarifies that all middle housing types— not just duplexes—will be allowed the same exemption from alley paving requirements in the R-6 Zone that currently exists for detached single-family dwellings. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 3 OF 13 Page 4 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 32. Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached LOC 50.03.003.1.e townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use- Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section. The proposed change to Item 32 [D] revises permitted density for townhouses within the Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects (LOC 50.03.003.1.e) to ensure compliance with Division 46 requirements. OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapter 50.05) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 7. Exempt conversions or additions to detached single-family LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6) dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO, as required for state minimum compliance. The proposed change to Item 7 [0] revises the language in the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements section in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6)) to more directly align with the provisions of Division 46 that relate to middle housing conversions, consistent with other changes proposed to the Applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) (Item 18 [D]). PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CODE AMEMDMENT SECTIONS Proposed modifications to Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022 follow: Item 1.2[D]:Add design standards for cottage clusters as new Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. The current draft code amendments include language in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1): Clustered Parking (within the Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters) as follows: (1) Clustered Parking Off-street parking may be arranged in clusters, subiect to the following standards: /// Staff recommended including language that stipulated that, "Off-street parking may be arranged in clusters..." in order to maintain consistency with the DLCD Model Code. However, 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 4 OF 13 Page 5 staff notes that the term "may" is relatively ambiguous and could imply that clustered parking is not directly required, but simply available as one option for consideration. Due to this ambiguity, a question was posed to representatives from DLCD to clarify the intent of the model code language related to this provision. DLCD staff responded that they believed that the wording in the Model Code was imprecise and that there would not be issues changing the "may" in this sentence to "must" or "shall" (see Exhibit F-1). The proposed change to Item 1.2 [D] would change "may" to "shall" to further clarify that this standard is not optional: (1) Clustered Parking Off-street parking shall be arranged in clusters, subject to the following standards: /// Item 3.3[D]:Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential High-Density Dimensions Table to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The current draft code amendments include changes to Table 50.04.001-11: Residential High- Density Dimensions that apply a minimum lot size for multi-family dwellings within the R-W and R-2 districts, as follows: BLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIO R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS 50.04.001.3.c Multi-family Dwellings Area (sq. ft.) 3,375 3,375 No min. No min. Per Dwelling 3,375 3,375 No min. No min. /// Because multi-family dwellings are not permitted in the R-W or R-2 Districts, as clarified in the Residential Districts Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1), it was an error to apply a minimum lot size to multi-family dwellings in this zone. In order to address this error, staff proposes the following revision: ABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 5 OF 13 Page 6 TABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENS R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS 50.04.001.3.c Multi-family Dwellings Area (sq. ft.) — 3,375 — No min. Per Dwelling — 3,375 — No min. /// Item 17[DJ:Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones. The draft code amendments included changes to the Building Design Standards Applicability Table (Table 50.06.001-1) and the Applicability section for Structure Design — Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a.i) in order to apply building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones. Specifically, the amended applicability statement in Table 50.06.001-1 (Item 17.1 [D]) proposed to remove the "attached single-family (three or more units) residential development" language, given that townhouses (or "attached single-family") are now proposed to be defined as middle housing—which is processed as ministerial development. Language in footnote three of Table 50.06.001-1 within the draft code amendments reads as follows: [3] Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), multi-family residential, attached single family (three or more vnit6) residential develcmcnt;and to all minor development within the R-DD zone. This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development. Because this is an applicability section, and not a statement defining what is or is not minor development, "townhouses" should be re-added to this list to cover the circumstances when the development of three or townhouse more units could be processed as minor development (in commercial districts, industrial districts, mixed-use districts, or the R-DD Zone). Staff proposes the following revision: [3] Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), multi-family residential, townhouses attached single family (three or more units) residential development, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone. This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 6 OF 13 Page 7 This revision would not expand the classification of minor development to include all townhouses, and would further clarify which standards apply to middle housing when allowed under a minor dev procedure. Staff notes that the language in the applicability statement for "Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-family Development Not Located in the FMU Zone, and Minor Development in the R-DD Zone Standards for Approval" (LOC 50.06.001.5(a)(ii)) serves a similar purpose to the language in footnote three of the Building Design Standards Applicability Table (Table 50.06.001-1). In order to ensure that this language is consistent, and to avoid confusion, staff proposes that the same exact language (as highlighted below) be included in a new amendment to LOC 50.06.001.5(a)(ii): a. Applicability This standard is applicable in all zones except the FMU zone to: i. Ministerial development: development involving mechanical equipment, limited to LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening); and ii. Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), private recreational use, multi-family residential, townhouses attached single family (three or more units) residential development, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone. This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3). Item 18[DJ: Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. The draft code amendments include new provisions in the Applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) intended to clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of new middle housing are exempted from the general building design standards: a. Applicability /// iii. Remodels or conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition, are exempted from the standards of this subsection. iv. For additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, this subsection (a) shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 7 OF 13 Page 8 portion(s) of the structure. Existing non-conforming portions of the structure to remain in place are exempted from the standards of this subsection. In order to be as clear as possible regarding how design standards apply to a remodel project that results in the creation of new middle housing, more specificity is needed in the code. While the term "remodel" is included in the provisions above, this term is not defined elsewhere in the code and there is no language in Division 46 that stipulates that cities must reference the term "remodel" in order to comply. Here is an excerpt of the relevant language from OAR 660- 046-0230: Middle Housing Conversions (1) Additions to, or conversions of, an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing is allowed in a Large City pursuant to OAR 660-046-0205(2), provided that the addition or conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large City's development code. In order to ensure consistency and more directly align with the provisions of Division 46, staff proposes the following revision to LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii: iii. Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection, provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. Item 20[D]: Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not scale by the number of dwelling units. The draft code amendments included modifications to the front porch design standards in the R- 6 Zone (LOC 50.06.001.3.b) so that they do not scale by the number of dwelling units, in order to comply with the minimum requirements in OAR 660-046-0225: Middle Housing Design Standards in Large Cities (1)A Large City is not required to apply design standards to Middle Housing. However, if a Large City chooses to apply design standards to Middle Housing, it may only apply the following: /// (c) The same clear and objective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone. Design standards may not scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units, such as primary entrances. Design standards may scale with form-based attributes, including but not limited to floor area, street facing façade, height, bulk, and scale; or /// 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 8 OF 13 Page 9 Current standards in the R-6 Zone require a covered front porch at the "main entry" of a primary dwelling. Though the current code does not specifically prevent porches from being oriented towards a wide street / avenue frontage, under existing code the required front porch at the "main entry" must face the narrow street on corner lots. Given that there could be more than one"main entry"to a middle housing development,the front porch standards had to be modified to clarify that a front porch is not required at every entrance so that they do not scale by the number of dwelling units. The following language was proposed in the draft code amendments: b. Front Porch Required i. All new primary structuresdwellings shall include a covered front porch in front of every primary entrance into to a living area that does not face an alley. When applied to cottage clusters, this standard applies to cottages for which there are no other structures between it and the front lot line. ii. at the main entry that has Each porch must have a minimum depth of six ft. and a cumulative minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. iii. On corner lots, the at least one covered front porch and main entry shall be provided on the narrow street frontage. On lots with more than two street frontages, the at least one front porch and main entry shall be provided on the front yard providing the full depth required by the zone, as determined by LOC 50.04.003.6. Porch supports shall be provided on the front porch and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material with the appearance of wood or masonry. iv. A pedestrian front entry path shall provide direct access from the each front porch to the public street/sidewalk.On corner lots,the front entrypedestrian path shall connect to the public street/sidewalk on the narrow street frontage. The above language specifies that covered front porches would be required in front of "every primary entrance into to a living area that does not face an alley," as opposed to the "main entry" that is referenced in the existing code. Staff notes that this language is not clear enough to be administered effectively. For instance, because it is unclear what would specifically be defined as a "living area" in the code, and because it's unclear how to define a "primary" entrance to a multiple-unit dwelling, it would be unclear how staff would assess compliance with this standard. Staff recommends revisions to the draft code amendments that clarify that a porch must be provided at "an entry" along the narrow street frontage, as opposed to the "main entry" or a "primary entrance into a living area that does not face an alley." The language in the draft code amendments also modified the front porch standards specific to corner lots by stipulating that"at least one"front porch shall be provided along the narrow street frontage, instead of the current language that requires that, "the front porch and main entry" be provided on the narrow street frontage for corner lots. The draft code amendments also state 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 9 OF 13 Page 10 that front porches must have a "cumulative" minimum width of either 50%of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. When considered together, these amendments inadvertently allowed porches that face wide streets / lettered avenues to be counted towards front porch requirements when combined with other porches along narrow or numbered streets. This result was an unintended consequence of the draft code amendments, which were intended to maintain the existing R-6 front porch standards to the fullest extent possible. Given that the requirement for front porches along narrow street frontages is a critical component of the existing R-6 front porch standards, staff proposes to remove the word "cumulative" from the draft code amendments in order to clarify that the minimum width requirements for a front porch on a corner lot must be met along the narrow street frontage — not along the wide street frontage. Staff also proposes to revise the language such that corner lots are required to have "the covered front porch and entry" provided on the narrow street, instead of "at least one front porch". Staff proposes revising LOC 50.06.001.3.b as follows: b. Front Porch Required i. All new primary structuresdw shall include a covered front porch at an the main entry. When applied to cottage clusters, this standard applies to cottages for which there are no other structures between it and the front lot line. ii. t at hcc aThe porch shall have a minimum depth of six ft. and a minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. iii. On corner lots, the covered front porch and main entry shall be provided on the narrow street frontage. On lots with more than two street frontages, the front porch and main entry shall be provided on the front yard providing the full depth required by the zone, as determined by LOC 50.04.003.6. iv++. Porch supports shall be provided on the front porch and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material with the appearance of wood or masonry. iv. A pedestrian front entry path shall provide direct access from the front porch to the public street/sidewalk. On corner lots, the front cntrypedestrian path shall connect to the public street/sidewalk on the narrow street frontage. Item 21 (DI: Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard. The draft code amendments included changes to the alley surfacing requirements in the R-6 Zone (LOC 50.06.001.3.c) that were intended apply the surfacing standards equally to single- 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 10 OF 13 Page 11 family dwellings and duplexes. This change is required pursuant to Division 46, which stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone are considered a public works standard, in this case they must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes. The draft code amendments further required alley paving for triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters, in order to be consistent with the current applicability of this provision to multifamily and townhouse developments. See below for the language included in the initial draft code amendments: c. Alleys Alleys shall be surfaced in the following manner: i. Alleys that serve single-family or duplex residences only shall be paved with gravel or permeable material. ii. Alleys that serve commercial, multi-family dwelling, townhouse, rowhousc, triplex, quadplex, or duplcx_cottage cluster development, major public facilities structures, or institutional uses shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. However, this language unintentionally expands the applicability of the alley paving requirement beyond the current scope of the provision. The existing language in the code requires paving for alleys that serve commercial, multifamily and townhouse developments. Because multifamily and townhouse developments are not currently allowed in R-6, this provision was really only intended to apply to a small subset of R-6 alleys that border other zoning districts that allow these uses. Given that triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters must now be allowed within the R-6 zone, the proposed amendment inadvertently expands the applicability of the alley paving requirement beyond its limited applicability today. Applying the standard as written in the draft code amendments could result in a patchwork of paved areas along the alleys in the R-6 Zone, which would be an unintended result of the amendment that does not align with existing neighborhood character. Further, introducing pavement within R-6 alleys could exacerbate stormwater issues for adjacent neighbors, as there is no public stormwater system for developments to connect to within the alley. Any approach to requiring pavement in these alleys must fully address how runoff within the alleys should be managed, as well as how to best maintain the existing character of these alleys with new development. In order to address these issues, staff proposes that the exemption from R-6 alley paving requirements be extended to all middle housing types— not just duplexes. This revision would be compliant with Division 46, which also allows cities to extend public works exceptions to other types of middle housing. Staff proposes the following revision to the alley surfacing requirements in the R-6 Zone (LOC 50.06.001.3.c): c. Alleys 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 11 OF 13 Page 12 Alleys shall be surfaced in the following manner: i. Alleys that serve single-family or middle housing residences only shall be paved with gravel or permeable material. ii. Alleys that serve commercial or, multi-familyolling, townhouse, rowhousc, or duplex_development, major public facilities structures, or institutional uses shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. Item 32(D]: Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached townhouse units per townhouse project. The draft code amendments included language intended to ensure consistency with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 by applying a maximum density of four attached townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section (LOC 50.03.003.1.e), as follows: e. Townhouse Projects In addition to the standards in Subsections a-c, above, townhouse projects shall be limited to four attached townhouse units per townhouse project. However, this language is not entirely consistent with the language in OAR 660-046-205(4)(c), which allows cities to limit the number of townhouse units within a single townhouse building but does not allow cities to limit the overall number of units in a townhouse project or development. In order to ensure consistency with Division 46 requirements, staff proposes the following revision to the Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects (LOC 50.03.003.1.e): e. Townhouse Projects In addition to the standards in Subsections a-c, above, no more than four units shall be allowed in an attached townhouse structure. Item 7[O]: Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to detached single-family dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO. The draft code amendments also included new provisions in the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards for the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District. While the standards in the applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) apply broadly in most residential districts (see Item 18 [D], above), the language in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO) code section is specific to remodels and expansions within the LGVCO boundaries. For this reason, it was necessary to propose amendments to both of these sections in order to comply with the state's minimum requirements for conversions of single-family dwellings to middle housing. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 12 OF 13 Page 13 Staff proposes that the same revisions to the amendments proposed to LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii, above (Item 18 [D]), be made to the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements section in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6)), as follows: (6) Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection, provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. EXHIBITS F-1 Email Correspondence from DLCD Staff, 3/9/2022 To view the Staff Report, draft code amendments (dated and distributed on 3/7/2022) and other documents in the public records file, visit the Land Use Project webpage: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/boc pc/lu-22-0007-middle-housing-house-bill-2001-community- development-code-amendments 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 13 OF 13 From: STUCKMAYER Ethan*DLCD To: Jamin Kimmel) Cc: Olson.Erik; Rachel Cotton Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE:Cottage Cluster Model Code:Clustered Parking Date: Wednesday,March 09,2022 9:38:11 AM Hi Jamin, I believe this is a case of imprecise wording in the model code. The intent was that off-street parking not be required for cottage clusters under the model code. However, if the property owner wanted to provide parking it be provided subject to the clustered parking standards outlined in (6) below. The "may" should have really been a "must". I think the miswording resulted from the fact that providing off-parking is optional under the model code in the first place - they"may" provide parking, but that parking "must" be clustered. I see no issue with a city adopting code that changes the phrasing of(6) from "may" to "must" or "shall". I think this provides better clarity and certainty to the developer anyway. Thanks! Ethan Stuckmayer wolk Senior Planner of Housing Programs I Community Services Division Pronouns:he/him/his AMA Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development NW 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 I Salem, OR 97301-2540 DLCD Work Phone: 503-302-0937 (Preferred) I Main DLCD Office: 503-373-0050 ethan.stuckmaveradlcd.oreaon.aov I www.oreaon.aov/LCD From:Jamin Kimmell <jamin@cascadia-partners.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:38 PM To: STUCKMAYER Ethan * DLCD<Ethan.STUCKMAYER@dlcd.oregon.gov> Cc: Olson, Erik<eolson@ci.oswego.or.us>; Rachel Cotton <rachel@cascadia-partners.com> Subject: Cottage Cluster Model Code: Clustered Parking Hi Ethan, We have a quick question on the parking design standards for cottage clusters in the model code. See language below. Are you aware if the intent of the code was to require parking in clusters or only to allow parking to be clustered at the discretion of the applicant?The use of the word "may" in the standard indicates the latter. But it seems odd to limit the number of contiguous spaces in a cluster if arranging parking in a cluster is not required in the first place. Couldn't a developer simply sidestep the requirements by claiming the parking is not arranged in clusters? Curious if this has some up before.Thanks for any insight you can offer. LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F- 1/PAGE 1 OF 2 6. Parking Design (see Figure 27). a. Clustered parking. Off-street parking may be arranged in clusters, subject to the following standards: i. Cottage cluster projects with fewer than 16 cottages are permitted parking clusters of not more than five (5) contiguous spaces. ii. Cottage cluster projects with 16 cottages or more are permitted parking clusters of not more than eight(8) contiguous spaces. iii. Parking clusters must be separated from other spaces by at least four(4)feet of landscaping. iv. Clustered parking areas may be covered. Jamin Kimmell, AICP Partner, Cascadia Partners iamin@cascadia-oartners.com p: 612.940.9087 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F- 1/PAGE 2 OF 2 04/14/2022 Follow-up Question#1:We received a question from a resident about the City's ability to set a maximum number of cottages on a lot. Here is the agency's response to Question#48 in last year's FAQ document: Q 48:According to OARs it seems like jurisdictions can have one unit/lot or infinite units/lot, but nothing in-between is possible. It would be helpful for a jurisdiction to know if they can limit clusters on a site.At what point is too much before becoming a small unit subdivision? A: The rule does not prohibit establishing an upper limit on the number of cottages on a lot. The requirement to allow at least eight units in a cluster means that there really is a floor to allow at least eight units within a cottage cluster, but a local jurisdiction may limit the upper threshold of how many units or clusters are allowed in a lot. Can you clarify DLCD's interpretation of OAR 660-046-0205(4)(d)(B)? If we are allowed to set a maximum limit on the number of cottages on a lot,would it not theoretically be compliant to require a maximum of eight cottages? If not,what type of limitation would be compliant? DLCD Response:A maximum number of cottages on a lot is acceptable for a large city to establish through the establishment of a maximum number of cottages per courtyard (at least eight) and maximum number of courtyards per lot. Effectively,this could result in as few as eight cottages and one courtyard per lot. Note, however,that the OARs do not permit the establishment of a number of overall cottages in a cottage cluster project, so a development consisting of several lots could potentially result in more than eight cottages. Follow-up Question#2:We also received a question from a resident about the City's ability to set a minimum footprint size for a cottage within a cottage cluster. OAR 660-046-0220(4)(e) reads as follows: (e)Dwelling Unit Size:A Large City may limit the minimum or maximum size of dwelling units in a Cottage Cluster, but must apply a maximum building footprint of less than 900 square feet per dwelling unit... While Division 46 has clear language related to the maximum building footprint that may be permitted for cottages, it's "silent" on whether cities could set a minimum building footprint. Can you clarify whether a minimum building footprint for cottages within a cluster would be compliant with Division 46? DLCD Response:A minimum cottage cluster footprint is not something that is considered in the OARs.This is mostly due to a policy direction from DLCD to allow the maximum flexibility of middle housing development.The city is not prohibited from applying a minimum footprint standard but don't feel that is best practice. We pose the rhetorical question of"what bad outcome would the city be mitigating against with that standard?" LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 1 OF 1 03/28/2022 OREGON Department of Land Conservation & Development House Bill 2001 Guidance — Affordability and Goal 10 Findings Middle Housing Affordability Considerations House Bill 2001 requires local governments to consider ways to increase the affordability of middle housing, including considerations related to SDCs, property tax exemptions, and construction taxes. Sections 3, chapter 639, Oregon Laws 2019: (4) In adopting regulations or amending a comprehensive plan under this section, a local government shall consider ways to increase the affordability of middle housing by considering ordinances and policies that include but are not limited to: a) Waiving or deferring system development charges; b) Adopting or amending criteria for property tax exemptions under ORS 307.515 (Definitions for ORS 307.515 to 307.523) to 307.523 (Time for filing application), 307.540 (Definitions for ORS 307.540 to 307.548) to 307.548 (Termination of exemption) or 307.651 (Definitions for ORS 307.651 to 307.687) to 307.687 (Review of denial of application) or property tax freezes under ORS 308.450 (Definitions for ORS 308.450 to 308.481) to 308.481 (Extending deadline for completion of rehabilitation project); and c) Assessing a construction tax under ORS 320.192 (City or county ordinance or resolution to impose tax) and 320.195 (Deposit of revenues). Please note that this is not a requirement to adopt these measures, but to consider them and directly address them within the findings. We advise that local governments use this opportunity to consider the myriad of policies that affect middle housing development. The policies outlined within the bill are specific to the subsidization of middle housing development and affordable housing generally. We also advise the consideration of other policies that affect the feasibility and affordability of housing options, such as the provision and finance of public facilities, incentives for regulated affordable housing development, incentives for the retention or conversion of existing affordable housing supply, and incentives and barriers within the development code. Starting these conversations will be helpful for local jurisdictions as they embark on their housing production strategy, a new planning requirement for cities above 10,000 implemented by House Bill 2003 (now ORS 197.290). This document will require cities to identify and develop an implementation schedule for strategies that promote the development of housing. Rulemaking for this new requirement included the compilation of a library of potential strategies local governments could consider as part of a housing production strategy. While this list is not exhaustive, it's a good place to start the conversation. You can access this document as an attachment on the Secretary of State webpage: <httr s://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=660-008-0050> [Publish Date] Department of Land Conservation and Development www.oregon.gov/lcd LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-3/PAGE 1 OF 2 03/28/2022 OREGON Department of ►� Land Conservation ‘410, & Development Goal 10 Findings ORS 197.175(2)(a) requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with Oregon's statewide land use planning goals, including Goal 10. In any plan amendment or adoption of land use regulations, cities and counties must address via findings how the proposed plan amendments affect compliance with each applicable goal. In adopting land use regulations to comply with House Bill 2001, local jurisdictions will need to consider how these regulations will affect their compliance with Goal 10, including how it affects an adopted Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and Housing Needs Analysis (HNA), to ensure the sufficient availability of buildable lands to accommodate needed housing types identified in the HNA. House Bill 2001 will enable to development of housing types where they were previously prohibited, increasing the capacity of lands to accommodate identified housing need. However, local jurisdictions will still need to consider how these regulations impact capacity in greater depth. ORS 197.296(6)(b), as amended by House Bill 2001, allows jurisdictions to assume up to a three percent increase in zoned capacity, unless they demonstrate a quantifiable validation that the anticipated capacity will be greater. In developing Goal 10 findings, we recommend that local jurisdictions apply this assumption to the adopted buildable lands inventory. Additionally, we recognize that adopted inventories may be dated and the true development capacity may not be known at the time of adoption. In these cases, we recommend that jurisdictions note that they will further consider the impacts of middle housing ordinances on land capacity in the next Housing Needs Analysis, as required on a regular schedule by House Bill 2003. [Publish Date] Department of Land Conservation and Development www.oregon.gov/lcd LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-3/PAGE 2 OF 2 2021 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee tiA F Key Issues Summary Memo Preliminary draft on October 7, 2021 ~' AINP�- O Final update November 3, 2021 OREGO� KEY ISSUES 1. Preservation of existing residential structures 2. Scale and character of new middle housing 3. Runoff and storm water impacts of middle housing 4. Affordability and accessibility of middle housing 1. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Members of the City Council and Planning Commission expressed concern that permitting middle housing in Lake Oswego could increase the rate of demolitions of existing residential structures, including existing naturally-occurring affordable (or relatively-affordable) housing. The Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (the "Committee") was provided with direction to explore potential incentives to encourage conversions or additions that create middle housing (as an alternative to demolitions) in order to promote the preservation of existing buildings. Committee discussion surrounding this topic indicated over 2/3 support'for the following code concepts: a. Revise the definition of"demolition" to include remodels that remove more than 50%of the exterior walls of the house. Members felt that this recommendation would help to prevent builders from pursuing projects that almost completely demolish an existing structure while still being considered a "remodel" under the current definition of"demolition". Under this current definition, a builder is able to demolish all but just one wall of an existing structure while not being required to classify the project as a "demolition", thus allowing builders to maintain nonconforming setbacks and lot coverage and avoid the City's recently-adopted $15,000 per dwelling-unit tax on residential demolitions. Changing the definition of"demolition" could encourage remodel projects that preserve more of the existing structure than under the current definition, while also working to disincentive demolitions of existing residences. Any revisions to the definition of demolition would 'The bylaws adopted by the MHCAC require a vote by two-thirds of the members present and eligible to vote to decide any question. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 1 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 1 OF 14 have broad applicability and would not just apply to middle housing, so further analysis would required to test the feasibility of any proposed changes. Though there was support for modifying the definition of "demolition" among many Committee members, one member expressed concern that this approach could result in adverse impacts on existing neighborhood character and recommended waiving the demolition tax for middle housing projects. Another member suggested a requirement that a reasonable opportunity be provided to a representative from the Historic Resources Advisory board to thoroughly photograph the interior and exterior of any structure that had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or local Lake Oswego historic landmark designation list prior to its demolition. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further consider concepts for how nonconforming development is defined and whether demolition tax applicability should be changed, particularly with respect to the threshold that must be reached in order for the project to qualify as a "demolition" (as compared to a remodel). Conduct feasibility testing and determine the extent of the impact this definitional change would have on existing City policies related to demolition and on development trends more broadly. b. Define duplexes, triplexes, and quad-plexes to include detached units, in addition to attached units. While some Committee members questioned the likely effectiveness of preserving existing houses by allowing for detached forms of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, members were generally supportive of detached "plexes" even in cases where an existing house is not preserved. Members stated that they supported detached "plexes" because they could allow additional flexibility for middle housing developments to better respond to topographical constraints, and because they could potentially result in more accessible dwelling units that would be more conducive to multi- generational living. There was general interest in exploring the question of detached "plexes" in further detail, particularly whether the City would only allow detached versions of certain types of "plexes" (for instance, allow detached duplexes but not detached triplexes or quadplexes). Committee members expressed particular concerns regarding the specifics of how detached duplex, triplex, and quadplex units would be regulated. Some members were concerned that it may be difficult to craft regulations for detached "plexes" that both comply with state requirements and result in a positive design outcome. For instance, one member noted that detached duplex, triplex, or quadplex developments would not be subject to the same standards that could be applied to cottage cluster developments, which are similar in concept to detached plexes but include different dimensional and design standards that are more appropriate for detached forms of middle housing. Another Committee member noted that, while the flexibility to construct detached units could produce a more positive design outcome, dimensional and design regulations should be further refined for both detached and attached middle housing developments in order to mitigate potential negative impacts on adjacent neighbors— particularly those related to access lanes constructed near adjacent properties. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 2 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 2 OF 14 Following this discussion, new information was provided by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) clarifying that detached "plex" forms of middle housing must be treated similarly to other middle housing required under Division 46. This means that the City could only apply more refined siting and design standards to detached "plex" developments through an alternative track, as opposed to the minimum standards, which would require that the City conduct more extensive analysis to prove that these standards do not create "unreasonable cost or delay". Considering that cities are not required under Division 46 to allow detached "plex" developments in the first place, a representative from DLCD informally stated that it was reasonable to assume that applying different siting and design standards for detached "plexes" would not be expected to create such cost or delay. Code concepts were further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 to address design and compatibility issues that may arise if detached "plexes" are permitted. See the Detached Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex discussion in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) and the Scale and Character of New Middle Housing section, below, for more discussion and next steps related to detached plex regulations. The Committee did not reach a clear consensus on other questions related to this topic, though half of the Committee did express support for a code concept that could preserve existing housing through the adoption of incentives to encourage conversions of or additions to single family dwellings (SFD) that create middle housing. The Committee also expressed 50% support for a code concept to not require that conversions of or additions to existing SFDs that create middle housing be consistent with the style and architecture of the existing structure. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#1 Memo: Preservation of Existing Homes (last updated on October 26, 2021). 2. 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. For Lake Oswego, dimensional standards include setbacks, height, setback planes, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and other requirements associated with utilities and public facilities. The Council also directed staff to apply the City's existing design standards to middle housing, with a suggestion to add new clear and objective standards that comply with state rules for middle housing in order to maintain consistency with existing homes and neighborhood character, as appropriate. In Lake Oswego, existing design standards regulate different form-based attributes of buildings, including garage appearance, long wall planes, roof projections, and in some zones, 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 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 3 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 3 OF 14 standards must scale with form-based attributes of the site or building, not with the number of dwelling units. Committee discussion on this issue indicated over 2/3 support for the following code concepts: a. Apply existing bulk and massing standards (or "dimensional" standards)for single-family housing to middle housing. Members generally felt that the current building envelopes in the Code were appropriate for the scale and character of the City. Some expressed concern that decreasing or "tightening" the building envelope could make it overly cumbersome to construct certain forms of middle housing (and may not comply with state regulations), while others were concerned that increasing or "loosening" the building envelope could increase the bulk or cost of single-family dwellings. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. b. Do not limit building width beyond existing setback regulations. Members expressed concern that building width limitations could produce undesirable design outcomes, with one member noting that some of the more desirable examples of middle housing would likely not comply with stringent building width limitations. One member also expressed concern that building width limitations could inadvertently encourage taller housing developments that may be less accessible to residents with a disability. Though members were clear that they did not support limiting building frontage width to a specific length or distance, some expressed support for a limitation on building width tied to a set proportion or percentage of the width of the overall lot. One member expressed concerns that, in conditions where lots are consolidated or larger than the minimum lot size, side setbacks alone may not adequately maintain building width, form, and massing patterns characteristic of that neighborhood. Members generally agreed that, though the "street side" of a development is certainly an important component of the design, it may be even more important to consider the potential impacts of middle housing development on abutting properties. Code concepts were further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 to address concerns that wide or uninterrupted building facades may negatively impact neighborhood character. However, following that discussion, the Committee did not opt to recommend any additional building width or façade articulation standards—consistent with their direction on the original question. See the discussion on Building Width and Facade Articulation in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) for more. Code concepts were also further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 that would address the potential impact of activity in side and rear yards on neighboring residents. See the discussion on Screening and Buffering in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) for more. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 4 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 4 OF 14 Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. c. Enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways. Members agreed that existing garage appearance standards should be updated to address the potential implications of middle housing, a recommendation that would also address concerns that were identified more broadly by the community in the Neighborhood Character Survey results regarding front-facing garages and driveways. Members expressed differing views on the benefits or drawbacks of streets containing many garages and curb cuts, with some members concerned that more driveways and curb cuts could reduce the availability of on-street parking, and others concerned that more on-street parking could produce an unsafe pedestrian environment by limiting visibility. One member pointed out that some garage design standards may impact accessibility for individuals with a disability, and that garages and driveways when designed appropriately can help provide ADA-compliant access to the street. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. d. Apply existing single-family housing design standards for driveways and garages to townhouses. The polling question presented to the Committee on this subject allowed members to select options that would indicate full support of the concept to apply existing single-family housing design standards for driveways and garages to townhouses, and another option that would indicate support for the concept while still expressing concerns about the potential negative impacts of wide garages and driveways. Though less than 2/3 of the Committee voted in support of this specific concept with no caveats (64%), staff has included this recommendation because an additional 27%of members were also tentatively in support of the concept while concurrently expressing concerns that the existing single-family housing design standards could result in wider and more visually-dominant garages and driveways for townhouse developments. Taken in combination, there is a clear trend that the Committee did not support applying DLCD Model Code standards for driveways and garages to townhouses or other middle housing types, as less than 10% of Committee members voted for the other polling options that would apply DLCD Model Code Standards to townhouses. During the discussion it was mentioned that, under the DLCD Model Code Standards, garages could occupy a greater percentage than currently allowed under the development code (60%) on townhouses with street frontages of less than 20 feet. Staff reminded Committee members that, while the regulations in the Model Code may be less restrictive for buildings with a frontage width of less than 20 feet, the Model Code would be more restrictive for buildings with a frontage width of over 20 feet. Some Committee members expressed concern about challenges that could emerge for those with different accessibility needs if the City were to further limit driveway and Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 5 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 5 OF 14 garage space. Other members expressed that, while they felt it was important to address concerns related to the visual impact of driveways and garages, they were concerned that these limitations could negatively impact the feasibility of developing townhouse units. Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language, while also addressing the potential negative visual impacts of wide garages and driveways. e. If landscaping is required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, include tree canopy requirements. Though the Committee was split on the question of whether landscaping should be required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, there was consensus that—if such requirements are instituted —they should take the form of requirements for a certain percentage of the lot to be covered by tree canopy. Staff notes that there was significant consensus on this issue amongst the group, as 90%of voting-eligible Committee members supported the concept of landscaping taking the form of a tree-canopy standard, if required. This option received more support than other code concepts that would define landscaping to include other elements, such as front yard or foundation landscaping. Next steps:Seek City Council direction on whether to regulate tree canopy under the Development Code (apart from the City's sensitive lands regulations). Subject to Council direction, work with the Planning Commission to refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. f. Limit the size of units within a cottage cluster. Although there was no clear consensus as to a specific recommended size, Committee members supported limiting the size of cottage cluster units in order to maintain consistency with existing neighborhood scale and character, and, indirectly, to promote housing affordability. Members expressed concerns that developers would be prone to maximize the square footage of individual cottage units if the City allows for those larger units. One member also expressed concerns related to accessibility, stating a preference for more square footage to be located on the ground floor of cottage cluster units when possible. Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for how to limit the size of units within a cottage cluster, and develop these concepts into recommended code language. Coordinate these code concepts with the concepts for detached forms of middle housing. g. Apply any design standard that applies to single-family housing to cottage cluster housing, as long as the standard does not conflict with the DLCD Model Code. While some members cautioned that the City should not be overly prescriptive with architectural style, form, or other design requirements, some also noted that designers are capable of responding to complex or prescriptive design standards, including specifications for modern or innovative buildings designs. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 6 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 6 OF 14 Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. h. Regulate open space for detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in the same manner as for attached "plexes". Open space is assumed to be in yard setbacks. Do not specify minimum size or location of open space. The Committee was not supportive of additional open space or courtyard requirements for detached duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes, which would align the requirements for detached plex developments more with the requirements for cottage cluster developments. One member expressed concerns that any requirements for the size or location of open space could work against the purpose of allowing detached plexes to begin with —which this person felt was to offer additional flexibility for property owners to add middle housing units to a given site. While there was general support to provide additional flexibility for detached plex developments, some members also felt strongly that building entrances should still be required to face either a street or open space. Staff was able to clarify that the entrance requirements for attached plex units—which include requirements that entrances face either open space or the adjacent street— could also be applied to detached units (similar to cottage clusters). Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. i. Allow smaller front or rear yard setbacks of 10-15 feet for detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as is allowed for cottage cluster housing. Committee members agreed with the concept of providing more flexibility for the layout of a detached plex site by allowing for reduced front or rear yard setbacks for such developments. Members expressed support for this concept in part because the setback reduction would provide additional flexibility to facilitate the construction of detached plex units, and in part because such reduced setbacks could produce larger and more usable open spaces to accompany such units. However, other Committee members expressed concerns that allowing for reduced setbacks could produce a negative impact on neighborhood character. One member stated that— because of the results of the previous question —the reduced setbacks would not be accompanied by open space requirements, and was concerned that developers may simply choose to maximize their building envelope and not provide additional open space. Staff clarified that there are numerous other mechanisms within the code intended to control the bulk and massing of buildings, such as lot coverage and floor area, and that these would continue to apply in a way that ensures that the additional space allowed for the setback would not actually permit a larger building envelope/ mass than would be permitted for a single-family dwelling or other types of middle housing. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 7 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 7 OF 14 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 8 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 8 OF 14 Other Concepts Considered Though the Committee did not reach a clear 2/3 consensus on other questions related to the scale and character of new middle housing, a majority of members expressed support for the following code concepts: • Create new standards to regulate the design and orientation of entrances for both middle housing and single-family housing, though the details require further discussion. • If landscaping is required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, include front yard landscaping requirements. • Require landscape screening when a garage or parking lot faces a side or rear lot line. • Do not require additional design standards relating to façade and entry elements for single-family and middle housing The Committee was more divided on polling questions related to landscaping requirements, with a 40% plurality of members voting for the City to institute landscaping requirements based on a percentage of lot area. Members questioned how the City would define "landscaping," pointing out that requiring more grass, for instance, might not necessarily result in positive environmental outcomes. Members were supportive of native, drought-resistant landscaping as well as a healthy tree canopy, stressing the importance of conserving water for the future through drought-tolerant plantings. Members acknowledged that some strategies intended to enhance aesthetics through landscaping may have unintended consequences for other important goals related to sustainability and resiliency in the face of climate change. One member cautioned that front-yard landscaping requirements could preclude more modern or minimalist landscape design approaches intended to highlight architectural form, and felt that it was more important for landscaping to be used to soften visual impacts on neighbors to the side of a proposed development than for curb appeal. Another stated concerns that "foundation plantings" could lead to increased risk of fire damage, as deciduous plantings located near buildings could have the unintended consequence of spreading fire adjacent to the primary structure. Staff notes there could also be administrative and enforcement challenges with implementing some of these concepts. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#2 Memo, pt. 1: Scale and Character of Duplexes,Triplexes, and Quadplexes (last updated on October 26, 2021), Key Issue#2 Memo, pt. 2: Scale and Character of Townhouses and Cottage Clusters (last updated on September 22, 2021), and the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 26, 2021). 3. RUNOFF AND STORMWATER IMPACTS OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING As densities increase with middle housing we anticipate removal of more landscaping and trees to make way for more driveways, patios, and other features, unless the City limits development of these features. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 9 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 9 OF 14 The Committee was provided with direction to explore potential limitations on the development of impervious surfaces for middle housing and single-family homes. When considering the polling results as a whole, there is a clear trend that the Committee was interested in further exploring the following code concept: a. Limit the development of impervious surfaces to mitigate the impacts of increased density. The polling question presented to the Committee on this subject allowed members to select an option that would indicate full support of the concept to limit the development of impervious surfaces for both single-family and middle housing development, as well as another option that would indicate support for the concept while still expressing concerns related to the impact of these requirements on development feasibility. Though just —44% of the Committee voted in support of this specific concept with no added caveats or qualifiers, staff has included this recommendation because an additional "44% of members were also tentatively in support of the concept while concurrently expressing concerns that the impervious surface limitations could make it less feasible to develop middle housing. Taken in combination, there is a clear trend that the Committee was interested in further exploring impervious surface limitations, as only—11% of Committee members voted for the other polling option not to apply limitations on impervious surfaces. The Committee also received a comment from a member of the public that supported impervious surface limitations. Despite general support for the concept, Committee members were interested in the specifics of what would be considered a pervious or impervious surface under the code, with one member stating that the use of"pervious" pavers in driveways was not desirable. Another member expressed concern that impervious surface limitations could impact accessibility for individuals with a disability, as impervious surface limitations could disincentive the use of accessible pathways, ramps, or other features that would improve accessibility. Staff responded that it would be appropriate to conduct a feasibility analysis to determine the extent to which an impervious surface requirement could impact the ability to develop accessible middle housing units, in order to better "calibrate" the proposed requirement. Another member expressed concern that percentage-based impervious surface limitations could disproportionately impact development feasibility on smaller lots, but thought that the percentage-based requirements may be more appropriate on larger lots. Staff responded that this issue could be explored when conducting a feasibility study, and that it may be appropriate to "calibrate" required impervious surface requirements based on lot size. There was also some discussion of specific site conditions that may further necessitate impervious surface limits, such as steeply-sloped sites or sites containing soils that do not drain well. While some members felt that impervious surface limitations would be most appropriate for sites with these types of conditions, others felt that such limitations are needed on a City-wide basis. Members also discussed the utility of larger trees in absorbing stormwater on-site, with one member suggesting that retaining significant trees should be a component of the City's strategy related to impervious surfaces. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 10 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 10 OF 14 Next steps:Seek City Council direction on whether to limit development of impervious surfaces to mitigate impacts of increased density. Subject to Council direction, conduct feasibility testing in order to calibrate/develop a more specific recommendation related to impervious surface limitations. As applicable, work with the Planning Commission to refine this concept into code language. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#3 Memo: Stormwater (last updated on October 26, 2021). 4. AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING City Council directed the Committee to recommend approaches to encourage middle housing developed under HB 2001 to meet the specific housing needs of the community. The two primary needs that have been identified are for units that are affordable to lower or moderate-income households (defined as families earning 80% or less of area median income) and for units that are accessible for people with disabilities, older individuals, or others who otherwise have needs that may not be met by current housing options. Committee discussion on this issue indicated over 2/3 support for the following code concepts: a. Provide financial incentives for middle housing projects that include a minimum number or percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Committee members expressed support for producing affordable housing consistent with City Council goals, with some members stating that the City should also attempt to promote housing for people of color or more diverse residents in order to redress the history of racist exclusionary housing practices in Lake Oswego. One member noted that similar forms of discrimination continue to this day, even though they are technically illegal. Other members responded by agreeing with the sentiment that past discrimination should be addressed, but urged caution given the history of fair housing-related legal issues that have emerged when cities attempt to provide housing preference to individuals based on race or other types of legal status protected under the federal Fair Housing Act and Oregon's fair housing statutes. Several members agreed that, even though there may be legal implications for some strategies that would target more diverse residents, the concept was worth exploring further given that other strategies to promote diversity may not have the same legal risk. Though there was general support for providing financial incentives for accessible middle housing units, some Committee members stressed the importance of determining which specific accessibility standard would be incentivized. Other members noted that there are several different standards for accessibility that the City could incentivize, noting that there is no single accessibility standard utilized by builders given their desire for flexibility. See the discussion below for more discussion on the specific types of financial incentives recommended by the Committee. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 11 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 11 OF 14 i. Revise the City's current SDC exemption policy so that it applies to middle housing developments that provide a minimum percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Planning staff noted that the City's existing SDC exemption policy for ADUs has had a measurable impact on increasing their development, with the construction of ADUs doubling in volume after SDC exemptions began to be offered. While members supported the concept of SDC exemptions for affordable or accessible middle housing, they also agreed that there should be a limit to the number of units that could be exempted from SDCs or property taxes. For example, one member suggested that the first unit on a lot would be subject to full SDCs while fees for additional middle housing units might be exempt from or have reduced SDCs. Staff indicated that this approach could be similar to the existing fee waiver for ADUs, which because of their small size are assumed to have a de minimis impact on City infrastructure. Some members expressed concern about making up for any revenue lost through SDC or property exemptions, stating that City infrastructure could deteriorate without sufficient funding. Other members countered that municipalities are able to set budgetary priorities depending on policy direction and that budgetary allocation was not within the purview of the Committee. One member noted that, if the City had concerns about maintaining enough funds to offset potential SDC exemptions, SDC deferrals (require payment at time of occupancy instead of at issuance of building permit) could be another short-term option. Staff clarified that any proposal for financial incentives that would be presented to Council would need to include an assessment of the budgetary impact of the policy as well as alternative approaches, including potential offsets for any lost revenue through other budgetary sources. Next steps:Work with the City Council and Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for SDC exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing. ii. Provide property tax exemptions for middle housing developments that provide a minimum percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Committee members asked clarifying questions about how property tax exemptions would apply to owner-occupied affordable or accessible units, with staff noting that deed restrictions related to owner-occupied housing are feasible but function differently than for rental housing. One Committee member expressed interest in potentially exploring a "community land trust" model within Lake Oswego in order to ensure the continued availability of homeownership opportunities related to affordable housing. It should be noted that the City currently does not offer property tax exemptions for affordable housing except as required by state law. Next steps:Work with the City Council and Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for property exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 12 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 12 OF 14 b. Do not provide regulatory incentives for middle housing developments that include affordable and/or accessible units. Committee members voiced concern that adjacent neighbors would bear the burden of regulatory incentives that increase bulk, add density, or eliminate parking requirements, and that loosening these zoning requirements could diminish many of the characteristics that residents stated that they valued about their neighborhood during the Neighborhood Character Survey conducted earlier this year. Members also expressed concerns that regulatory incentives could produce less- desirable housing than would be produced otherwise, with members noting that low-income residents should be offered the same quality of housing that would be offered with market-rate housing. Next steps: Convey this recommendation to the City Council and Planning Commission. Though the Committee did not reach a clear 2/3 consensus, a majority of members expressed support for the City to institute a Construction Excise Tax (CET) to help fund affordable housing incentives and programs. Some members expressed concern that CETs would increase the cost of construction in Lake Oswego, with one member stating that the burden of funding affordable housing should not be placed upon homebuilders. Other members countered by stating that a CET could actually encourage builders of affordable housing to work in Lake Oswego by showing that the City values equity and inclusion, and that this added value could make this type of housing more viable or desirable from a builder's perspective. Staff notes that there will likely be another opportunity to discuss the concept of CETs when the City proceeds to update its Housing Needs Analysis and develop a Housing Production Strategy (per House Bill 2003) in coming years. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#4 Memo: Affordability&Accessibility (last updated on October 7, 2021). ISSUES OUTSIDE OF ORIGINAL COMMITTEE SCOPE During the course of the Committee's discussion, some comments and ideas emerged that were not able to be addressed within the scope of the Committee's work. These additional issues are documented below: • Equitable Housing and Racial Justice: One or more Committee members stated that the City should go beyond incenting affordable or accessible units by looking at strategies that would specifically redress the history of racist exclusionary housing practices in Lake Oswego. While some members posed the idea that new housing units could be targeted to people of color or more diverse residents, other members urged caution given the history of fair housing-related legal issues that have emerged when cities attempt to provide housing preference to individuals based on race or other types of legal status protected under the federal Fair Housing Act and Oregon's fair housing statutes. Some members agreed that, even though there may be legal implications for some strategies to target more diverse residents, the concept was worth exploring Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 13 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 13 OF 14 further given that other strategies to promote diversity within the city may not have the same legal risk. • Senate Bill 458: Shortly before the Committee's first meeting, Senate Bill 458 was adopted by the Oregon Legislature. The bill requires jurisdictions subject to the requirements of HB 2001 to allow lot divisions for any type of middle housing allowed pursuant to HB 2001 through an "expedited land division process." The bill also sets forth a series of parameters on how a city must process middle housing lot division applications. Committee members posed many questions about how Senate Bill 458 would impact their decisions, and whether allowing for such expedited land divisions would make it possible not to comply with other requirements under consideration. While staff responded that, generally speaking, they did not see any provisions in SB 458 that would conflict with the direction already provided by the Committee, it will be necessary to discuss the implications of the bill more thoroughly through the public process and seek direction from City Council regarding how to respond. • Stormwater requirements: While discussing potential recommendations related to impervious surface limitations, some members expressed concern that the City's existing Stormwater Code may not be sufficient to accommodate the potential increase in runoff that could result from new middle housing development. • Access and connectivity: One Committee member expressed a desire to explore design standards that would encourage pathways, driveways, and access lanes for middle housing that connect to one another, where practicable. • Land use restrictions for garages: One Committee member expressed an interest in restricting the use of garages to parking only, thus prohibiting the use of garages for storage or other purposes that could result in the need for more on-street parking. City legal staff examined this issue and expressed concerns about the difficulty of enforcing such a restriction, as well as concerns that this restriction could conflict with previously-enacted City policies related to garages. • Garbage and recycling bins: One Committee member suggested that the City explore strategies to require or incentivize the screening of garbage, recycling, and compost bins. • Moratorium on tree removal: One member of the public suggested that, in order to improve the on-site absorption of stormwater runoff, the City should institute a moratorium on the removal of any tree above 15 inches in diameter. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 14 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 14 OF 14 McCaleb, Iris From: Shannon Clark <shannon.a.clark@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:32 PM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] ATTN: Iris McCaleb/City of Lake Oswego Planning & Building Services Department Written Testimony for Monday,April 11, 2022. Middle Housing (House Bill 2001) Community Development Code Amendments LU 22-0007/Ordinance 2892 A thicker, denser housing canopy will take away our beautiful tree canopy&the charm & livability of our small, suburban town. The city of Lake Oswego has been extremely lenient with tree removals in the last few years (I've lived here for 30 years, so I can attest by seeing how many ridiculous permits are allowed,where 10 years ago they wouldn't have been considered). To make room for more housing density-more trees will have to be removed...that's not what I, and many others have signed up for when purchasing in our suburban Lake Oswego community. I was raised until 11 in an urban, inner city, where's there's more rooftop's than treetops(my 75 year old dad still lives in this inner city home in California, which I travel to many times a year-and grateful for when I return home to my suburban area home with its beautiful tree canopy). This is why I purchased my home in a small, suburban city& not Portland. These HB's will only push out suburban boundaries & it's residents&we're living in a time where we've learned that we need to plant more trees than to take more down. Shannon Clark 17163 Warren Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Sent from my iPad 1 of 1 PC Testimony From: rockwell mullen <mullenrockwe1190@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:23 PM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed "middle housing" City Council members: I am a third generation Lake Oswego resident and have lived in town for 65 years. Allowing "middle housing" in single family zones would significantly lower the community experience we cherish. It would also lower property values. R.E. Mullen 18337 Tamaway Dr. Lake Oswego, OR LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-002 /PAGE 1 OF 1 PC Testimony From: Brittany Miles <brittany.miles@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 2:28 PM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] LU 22-0007 SUPPORT Dear Planning Commissioners, I support LU 22-0007. I believe creating more dense housing within Lake Oswego will provide a net benefit to the community by increasing property taxes and greater income diversity. Best, Brittany Miles 3850 Lake Grove Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Brittany Miles Cell: (562)419-4416 brittanv.miles@gmail.com LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-3 /PAGE 1 OF 1 McCaleb, Iris From: Robert Ervin <bobandmignon@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:01 AM To: McCaleb, Iris Subject: [EXTERNAL] Testimony 4/11/22 to Planning Committee Chair Heape and Members of the Planning Committee, Thank you for the opportunity of speaking with you this evening. My name is Bob Ervin. I reside at 2240 Prestwick Road in the Uplands Neighborhood. I had the pleasure of serving on the Middle Housing Task Force and am the chair person of the Uplands Neighborhood Association and Vice Chair of the Neighborhood Chairs Committee. I would like to recognize the tremendous amount of good work the city's planning staff and your committee have done to review code in an effort to attain compliance with HB 2001 and also protect the character of our neighborhoods. I would particularly like to thank Erik Olson who has worked very diligently to ensure all voices have been heard and has taken appropriate steps to balance state and city priorities. The issue I would like to address is a gap that I see in the code as it pertains to Cluster Housing. While the draft code for the maximum footprint is established at 900 square feet per unit averaged over the cluster development, we also have the flexibility with HB2001 to set a minimum footprint for individual cottages. We heard a concern from the 50+ representative on the Middle Housing Taskforce that there needs to be sufficient space on the ground floor to meet the needs of people with ambulatory limitations. Our current code for ADU's already permits smaller footprints. Given our aging demographics, I suggest that for cottage clusters, the code minimum be 800 square feet. Adding this footprint minimum for a cottage will help us ensure that we can meet thisneed in our community. Thank you for your consideration. Robert Ervin 503-803-9180 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-4/PAGE 1 OF 1 PC Testimony From: Susan Labhard <slabhard@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 10:59 AM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Testimony: Middle Housing (House Bill 2001) LU 22-0007/Ordinance 2892 Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:00 AM Flag Status: Flagged Planning Commission: As a 34-year property owner in Lake Oswego, it is in our best interest to oppose the amendment of Community Development Code(LOC 50)to allow"middle housing"in any zone that permits detached sing-family dwellings. We are now retired in our"forever home" and allowing "middle housing" would greatly reduce the value of our home, which is not fair to current homeowners in our area. There are other close-by locations to allow for"middle housing" which are more appropriate.The main advantage is for developers to make a profit at our expense. R, Scan .Ca.MPiwid LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-5/PAGE 1 OF 1 PC Testimony From: Alder Miller <alderbytheriver@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:52 AM To: PC Testimony Cc: Mom Chris Miller Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for Tonight's PC Hearing Hello, I am submitting comments on behalf of my mother, Christine Ernst for April 11, 2022 Planning Committee meeting. Please see below. Thank you. Chair Heape and Members of the Planning Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. My name is Christine Miller, and my parents built a home in 1975 on Wembley Park Road in the Uplands Neighborhood. We currently have two generations of our family living there today. I'd like to first start by acknowledging all the work that has been done by the city's planning staff, and this committee to work towards compliance with HB 2001. The concern I'd like to address is regarding the Cluster Housing code. While the draft code for the maximum footprint is established at 900 square feet per unit averaged over the cluster development, we also have the flexibility with HB2001 to set a minimum footprint for individual cottages. There needs to be sufficient space on the ground floor to meet the needs of people with ambulatory limitations. Given our aging demographics, I suggest that for cottage clusters, the code minimum be 800 square feet. The current code for ADUs already permits smaller footprints. Adding this footprint minimum for cottage clusters will help us ensure that we can meet this need in our community, and provide accessibility to those that need it most. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Christine Miller 415-699-3230 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-6/PAGE 1 OF 1 Submitted by Carole Ockert 4/11/2022 �1Tr 11 jl • HB2001 code language to Preserve the Streetscape in the First Addition Neighborhood - it � ; . 0)r IL: l �_ iix��pry�;, uuiuu�um �� ��'�mm umi11 . ` r f FAN's Streetscape Charming Front Porches 4tit N L' A `,44 Original home ►� =` New Walk along 7t" st LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-007/PAGE 1 OF 3 Submitted by Carole Ockert 4/11/2022 There was a code problem • The main entrance was not required to be on the front of the lot or off the front porch • So this happened: Yf� i / ice at ,.. Main Entry on side of structure Front Porch PC and CC fixed it • Current R6 Covered Front Porch code corrected in 2015 aligns: - the Covered Front Porch -the Main Entry - the front of the lot _ - path from front porch 1t'� " "� `PA �� to the street/sidewalk mom at the front (typically 7 the numbered streets, 1st through 10th St) --IL I I ICI llllll airraU _ LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-007/PAGE 2 OF 3 Submitted by Carole Ockert 4/11/2022 April 1st revision language does not mandate 'main' entry off front porch (per HB2001 compliance) Needs to add design standard for Front Porch/streetscape protection Updated Revision HB2001 draft code - Still allows for multiple entries for middle housing - Still does not require 'main entrance' off Front Porch - Preserves Covered Front Porch and Streetscape - Still allows covered patios - with fireplaces on side ur--_,Ini - it . Updated Revision HB2001 draft code ii. The porch shall have a minimum depth of six ft. and a minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. The covered front porch must be open and unobstructed/unobscured on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage. A railing may be provided up to 3 ft. in height as measured from the finished floor of the covered front porch or the State mandated railing height for that Project, whichever is higher. -d I , ' Iyui�xi,1 Ik j�, -- a LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-007/PAGE 3 OF 3