According the the Community Development Codes, there is no minimum size for a dwelling unit in LO. So how small can housing units be, and how many individual structures and dwelling units can be crammed onto a single lot? If the units are small enough, if the structures are several stories, if no parking is required... the number expands like a dandelion weed in summer.
WHY have small, group housing units become an issue in LO? Why now? HOW does this fit city or neighborhood character goals?
The answer to the third question is, it doesn't.
The first and second questions? You could see this one coming several years ago when planners included "cluster housing" in draft Comp Plan language. They claimed there was a strong preference for small, clustered housing, though surveys were so poorly constructed that no such conclusion could reasonably be made. At the time, there was no zone or development code that would allow such develooment. Citizens (USC included) objected to cluster housing as it allowed up-zoning (increased density) in residential areas in opposition to Comp Plan goals for preservation of neighborhood character. Planners repeatedly promised that UPZONING was not going to happen. The idea went dormant, but it came back just as the Comp Plan code audit got underway.
A potential new development code type is in the works, and the egregious, intentional, convoluted interpretation of the definition of a duplex (how hard is it to define a duplex anyway?) in zone R-2 is the foot in the door to get it done. The potential new development type is called, "multi-dwelling development" that is defined as "a grouping of individual residential structures on one lot, where each structure contains one or more dwelling units." Note: "potential" usually means "will be". Once draft plans and codes are written, the planning staff seems to have the authoritative upper hand. Why?
The details have not been fleshed out yet regarding specific lot or building dimensions (area, height, stories, lot coverage, setbacks), compatibility with neighboring homes, parking requirements, etc., but multi-dwelling development would be intended for medium and high density zones, R-0, R-2, R-3, R-DD, and R-5. The dwelling units could be on one lot, or a collection of lots to cover a larger area with more units.
What specifically do the planners have in mind? They aren't really saying. Any monkeying with multi-dwelling, multi-family density would add to the un-challengeable, un-appealable, ministerial-only, developer-friendly permit approval process approved under the Clear and Objective Housing Standards.
Here's the thing: A proposal for a new type of development preempts our elected City Council's prerogative to establish policies regarding land use and residential density. Staff merely responds to Council direction. The Council has not had this discussion, and the intent of a new residential development type and codes have not been spelled out. Let's put first things first: Scrap this plan, work on the duplex thing, keep it simple. This is a solution without a problem.
Not specified in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the diagram below suggests lot coverage could be about 50%. In a R-5 zone, this might mean 500 SF units, though minimum dwelling size is not established, and combined with max. heights, a development could allow XX units per acre. How many is XX? Best put this idea back on the shelf.
Read the report and send your comments to the Planning Commission prior to the Public Hearing date of April 27.
No comments:
Post a Comment