×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Second Wave ReCode Changes - Draft Land Use Code

The document below includes revisions to the four core articles of the land use code that comprised the ‘first wave’ of ReCode edits, as well as changes to the remainder of the code.  (If you're interested in a redlined version, you can find one here.) Explore the draft and give us your feedback here.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

in reply to Damon Yakovleff's comment

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 9:08PM on page 110

Content
Agreed. This should be standard across all zones
0 replies

Len anderson May 3 2024 at 7:20PM on page 1

General Comment
I think that NEW multi family units should be allowed as a conditional use In the rn2 zone.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 2:49PM on page 1

Content
This should not apply to housing. With regards to housing if there is a conflict, the less restrictive provision should control.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 2:48PM on page 1

Content
This should not apply to housing. With regards to housing if there is a conflict, the less restrictive provision should control.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 2:46PM on page 168

Content
This should say: Other uses may be allowed, provided the applicant can demonstrate to the Building Authority that the proposed use is substantially similar to a use listed above OR will generate pedestrian interest and activity
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 2:42PM on page 178

Content
Incentives like this that create more pedestrian path should exist in other parts of the code. For example, in the RN-2 or RN-3 zone.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 2:39PM on page 176

Content
The India Street Form Based Zone should extend (or should be allowed to extend) to Cumberland Avenue. Additionally, this zone would work great on Inner Washington and East Bayside. There should be a way for this zone to grow naturally overtime.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 2:35PM on page 175

Content
Form based zones should be added to other parts of Portland including parts of the West End.
0 replies

Damon Yakovleff May 3 2024 at 2:29PM on page 110

Content
Side and rear setbacks for <250 sf accessory structures should be reduced to 3' for all zones - especially RN-3 and higher.
1 reply

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:51PM on page 84

Content
This section should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:51PM on page 84

Content
This section should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:50PM on page 84

Content
This section should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:49PM on page 84

Content
The restrictions on restaurants operating between the hours of 11pm and 6am should be eliminated. The issues that this restriction is trying to address is already addressed with noise restrictions. Businesses in this zone should be able to naturally grow overtime and if there is a demand for restaurants staying open later, a small local business should be able to fill that demand. What this restriction does is forces people to order delivery or drive into town late at night. This leads to more traffic and more drunk driving. Additionally, it benefits larger businesses in the old port over small businesses. For the same reason, the requirement that food service and consumption shall be the primary function should be eliminated. If there is demand for a bar in the B-1 zone, then the zoning code should not prevent a bar from operating. There are still noise restrictions that would prevent incompatible uses.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:40PM on page 88

Content
This section should be changed as follows: The failure of the review authority to act within 30 days shall be deemed an approval of the conditional use
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:35PM on page 92

This section should be eliminated
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:34PM on page 92

Content
This restriction should be eliminated
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:32PM on page 93

Content
This restriction should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:29PM on page 110

Content
Minimum lot area on RN-2, RN-3, and RN-4 should all be 5,000 square feet. At a minimum both RN-2 and RN-3 should be 6,000. This small variation between the zones is very arbitrary and creates confusion and limits development for no reason.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:12PM on page 111

Content
The RN-2 zone should be merged with the RN-3 zone. The side setback is the only real difference between the two and it is not that significant. Having 1 zone instead of 2 will be much simpler and will allow for more incremental growth throughout Portland.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:10PM on page 111

Content
Detached accessory structure height should be changed to 20 feet or 3/5th the height of the principal structure, whichever is greater.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:08PM on page 119

Content
A minimum of 3,000 square feet feels like it is too much. This will ensure that developers can only build these on multiple lots. Therefore, this section should be rewritten to only include the 300 square feet per unit
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 1:03PM on page 119

Content
Why is there a maximum number? If these are popular, why not let them flourish?
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:57PM on page 127

Content
The restrictions that the porch may not exceed 50 square feet nor the projection from the building exceed six feet are arbitrary and do not serve the goals of the city. Neighborhoods with active front porches create a greater sense of community and make people feel safer when walking past at night. Additionally, a frequently used front porch is often a much better use of space than a grass lawn. Consider changing this section as follows: Any setback may be occupied by an entrance porch, with or without a roof, as long as the entrance porch does is setback 5 feet
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:45PM on page 105

Content
Average grade should be changed to the grade at sidewalk level.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:42PM on page 99

Content
This entire section should be eliminated. This restriction is essentially an aesthetic preference and is incredibly subjective. Apartments in Montreal are known for having exterior stairs and many residents prefer it because it gives them the feeling of independence from others in the building. Additionally, it can create small areas of outdoor space for people who would not have it otherwise.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:37PM on page 93

Content
The restrictions in this subsection feel arbitrary. This restriction should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:34PM on page 91

Content
This section should be changed to the following: Detached ADUs shall not be permitted between a principal structure and a front lot line, unless the area between the principal structure and the front lot line is the only area on the property where a detached ADU would fit.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:26PM on page 90

Content
This section should be changed as follows: Detached ADUs shall be limited to a maximum height of 20 feet, unless constructed as a vertical addition to a garage, in which case the height of the structure shall be limited to either (i) 25 feet or (ii) the height of the principal structure, whichever is greater.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:21PM on page 90

Content
This section should be changed to the following: An ADU shall be limited to a gross floor area of either (i) 2/3 of the gross floor area of the largest principal unit on the lot or (ii) 1,100 square feet, whichever is greater. This change would allow the city to pre-approve designs for ADUs that would be permitted on any city lot. Also, it would allow property owners to purchase modular homes without significant changes to the design.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:12PM on page 88

Content
There should be certain nonresidential uses (cafes, grocery stores, coffee shops, retail, etc.) that are granted conditional use unless the Zoning Board of Appeals makes certain findings.
0 replies
in reply to Robert Harville's comment

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:07PM on page 84

I think that you are confusing the I-B zone and the B-1 zone
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:04PM on page 81

Content
Grocery stores should explicitly be allowed (although they are likely already covered).
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:04PM on page 80

Content
This restriction should be eliminated. There should be more nonresidential uses allowed by right in predominantly residential areas.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 12:01PM on page 79

Content
It is not clear to me why this restriction exists. This seems like something that should be removed.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 11:56AM on page 65

Content
Cottage Courts should be added as a permitted use in all residential areas.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 11:54AM on page 65

Content
There needs to be more commercial uses allowed in the RN-2, RN-3, RN-4, and RN-5 zones. Namely, coffee shops, cafes, grocery stores, and retail stores.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 11:49AM on page 65

Content
Townhouses should be allowed in the RN-4 Zone!
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 11:47AM on page 56

Content
Add Townhouses to the RN-4 Zone!
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 11:46AM on page 56

Content
The RN-2 zone and the RN-3 zone are substantially similar. There is no practical difference. The standards currently used for the RN-3 zone should be used for all properties in the RN-2 zone. This would make the code simpler and it would also reflect that fact that many parcels in the new RN-2 zone are under 6,500 square feet and would already be nonconforming.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 11:39AM on page 7

Content
The procedures for upzoning a parcel should be set up to support incremental zoning increases overtime so that mixed use and higher density areas can grow and spread naturally overtime. Therefore, there should be a less onerous standard for upzoning a parcel that is abutting a higher zoned parcel. For example, if an RN4 lot abuts a B1 lot or an RN5 lot and wishes to be rezoned to either a B1 or an RN5 then the Planning Commission should grant their request unless certain criteria are met.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 3 2024 at 11:24AM on page 7

Content
There should not be a requirement to post notice in the newspaper. People don't read newspapers anymore. Instead notice should be on the city's website or social media. This would be cheaper and also more likely to give notice to interested parties.
0 replies

Megan May 1 2024 at 7:00PM on page 1

General Comment
New multifamily should be allowed as conditional use in the rn2 zone
0 replies

Killian O’Reilly May 1 2024 at 7:00PM on page 1

General Comment
New multi family should be allowed as a conditional use in the RN2 zone
0 replies

Paul M Waring May 1 2024 at 5:52PM on page 1

Content
New multi family units should be included for conditional use not just our existing in the R2 zone. It makes no sense not to Include them.
0 replies

Conor Whiting May 1 2024 at 5:50PM on page 4

Content
I believe new multi families should be allowed for conditional use in the RN2 zone.
0 replies

Willem Davis van Bakergem Apr 29 2024 at 9:29AM on page 327

Content
The existing parking requirements in Table 19-A (old) require 1 space per dwelling unit. In the proposed Table 18-A (new) the minimum is 2 spaces per unit. How will this parking requirement be applied to higher density affordable parcels in RN-2 zones where 2.5 times the number of up to 4 units is allowed? As single lot might legally have 10 units, but need 20 parkings spaces. Street parking would be difficult and a problem.
0 replies

Jacob Lavarnway Apr 28 2024 at 12:20PM on page 70

Content
As the draft map shows, only the Unum complex has the Office zoning applied. This zone does not permit housing, nor does it permit retail for basic needs, such as food. As a result, the Office zone does not encourage the city's goals of complete neighborhoods, nor the state's goals of reducing VMT. These critical uses for enabling car-free living are not permitted. Some of the options the City should consider : 1) Alter permitted uses in the Office zone to allow housing and basic retail. 2) Rezone the Unum complex into another district, such as RN-5, which is used at the Maine Medical Center, or B-3, like much of downtown & Old Port, or B-4, like Warren Ave. These examples are not exhaustive. 3) Cull the Office zone entirely, and change the zoning of its parcels to other mixed used zones as mentioned above.
0 replies

Robert Harville Apr 26 2024 at 4:51PM on page 84

In Section 6.4-36 Retail Section A states - in I-B zone, retail uses are limited to a maximum 10,000 s.f. Of gross floor area. Section B states - In I-B zone, retail uses are limited to a maximum of 5,000 s.f. Of gross floor area….. Sections A and B contradict on another.
1 reply

Robert Bergeron Apr 23 2024 at 11:54AM on page 195

Content
having been dealing with issues regarding emissions into the air and dealt with both the city permitting as well as the DEP I was assured that there would be stronger language inserted regarding dust emissions. it doesn't appear there has been any changes made regarding this issue. this has been an ongoing issue and needs to be addressed.
0 replies

Tw Apr 6 2024 at 3:02PM on page 105

Content
Why wouldn't the City plainly state that Average Grade is post-development grade. Could avoid problems and give clear guidance for lay-people what this means. It is also clear to judges trying to make decisions if people bring suit against the City to delay or stop housing from being built. It will stop non-sensical legal arguments that the City has not clearly stated the difference between height measurment on the Islands and the mainland. Clear, concise, simple language that leaves no room for interpretation or doubt is best. It avoids the City from having to expend time of city attorneys, planning staff and planning board and helps protect housing production.
0 replies
View all