Design Manual Draft: R-6 Design Standards

Big improvement from a layout perspective. Content has also been improved and using pictures/graphics is helpful. It is certainly more user friendly. I do question the wisdom of some of the language, processes and seeming intent. Simplify processes. Make them consistent and repeatable and not prone to abuse. Fairness, consistency of application, clarity in interpretation is key. Please don't countermand Zoning. It creates too many problems and delivers nothing positive. Not better designs, not satisfaction with the City, not more homes or more affordable homes. It creates a lot of work, cost and time and takes away valuable resources from City Staff and the HPB and PB from spending their/your time on more valuable activities.

Great addition. I would add underground parking. Doesn't take up livable space that could be used for humans like first floor parking does. Maintains or creates more pervious area on the lot for landscaping to attract pollinators, birds, etc. Can't be done on every lot but when it is possible it should be encouraged.

I think this is pretty well written. I do have one concern: The review authority should never be allowed to reduce the area under consideration to less than 2 blocks. They should be able to expand it but not further limit it. If this approach were to be taken those areas should be pre-defined by the City so people understand what they are buying. If there are areas so special that the review authority needs to change the area of the defined neighborhood to one block they should be easily identified and covered by an overlay and shown on the City GIS maps. This is a tool that can be abused and again leads to inequities in society. There simply isn't a need for this. The area considered should properly reflect the neighborhood. All of Munjoy Hill is the neighborhood for MH. Now to stretch it out and start comparing projects next to Two City Center in Downtown would be improper. But to compare a project on Melbourne Street with a project on Morning Street, Cumberland or St. Lawrence is not improper. That is the neighborhood. It is a 2-4 minute walk for goodness sake. By trying to limit it too much we create unneeded conflict, work, cost and time. It is better to set clear and realistic expectations and reinforce people's confidence in the fairness of the process.

Harmonious with buildings in the NEIGHBORHOOD. Could this be defined? For instance Munjoy Hill is defined as the whole R-6 zone area covering MH, West End is the whole area of R-6 covering the West End and the R-6 in Bayside. Valley Street/LibbyTown R-6 is considered that neighborhood. That is the true definition of neighborhood and should be the area of context used by HPB and PB and Planning Staff when reviewing projects. People want to continue to narrow this down to 2 or 1 blocks but then they want to ignore the actual conditions of the defined area if it doesn't fit what they want. So if neighboring buildings have 0' setbacks on street and are separated by 3' to 5' and cover 90% of their lot will that then be allowed? Again, when all context is confined to such a narrow area and some elements of the neighboring buildings are chosen to be acknowledged and used to define the new building but other characteristics are simply ignored it gets into real dicey ground. Things are cherry picked and the standards and principles get inconsistently applied because they start to address items like mass and scale that are really best left in Zoning. 45' building is simply not out of character any place in the R-6. Look at how Harvard has integrated their campus around Harvard Square. They have 7 story buildings next to 2.5 story colonials that people love to live in. 4 Story buildings are contextual next to 1-3.5 story homes. You find this around Portland and on Munjoy Hill. You find it in quaint Maine downtowns like Hallowell, Gardiner, Waldoboro and Farmington. It provides visual interest and enhances the character of a neighborhood. I think the fear is that every lot will house a 45' tall building and for many, many reasons that just won't happen. It is an unfounded fear and of course current zoning rules it out on 95% of the lots on Munjoy Hill.

One of the issues of comparing materials on houses today and using that as a measure of context is that the materials on houses has changed. Several of the houses around me were originally shingled when they were built in the 1800s and now are clapboard. Maybe a list of preferred materials. Why wouldn't a natural stone be allowed? It could certainly enhance the neighborhood, oozes character but there aren't any places where it is used. But should it be outlawed in R-6?

As the last sentence is cut off I don't know what is stated. If it is saying that in the absence of a predominant neighborhood pattern a Multi-unit should use the most immediate adjacent properties for guidance is not wise. Who know what that condition would mean or if it would appropriate, possible or even the best solution. There lot/land should be the main guiding factor. Don't limit it to the SF home next door necessarily. This should not be a big issue. It just takes collaboration between the design team and the City. Special consideration should be given when parking is put underground as this allows for more pervious area on the lot. Reducing heat island effect and absorbing water into the ground.

An additional thought of about "Neighborhood" definition. The City sends out notifications to property owners 500 feet of a new proposal for neighborhood meeting notification. To be consistent, shouldn't a "Neighborhood" be defined as any property 500 feet from proposed development? This way it is consistently applied rather than using a "2 block radius" which can be misconstrued.

An additional thought of about "Neighborhood" definition. The City sends out notifications to property owners 500 feet of a new proposal for neighborhood meeting notification. To be consistent, shouldn't a "Neighborhood" be defined as any property 500 feet from proposed development? This way it is consistently applied rather than using a "2 block radius" which can be misconstrued.

In the R-6 Design Standards there should be a new section addressing 2 areas that are NOT being currently addressed in zoning or this document. 1) If it is considered R-6 infill, then this means adding soil. It needs to be stated that soil added to infill and new developments should be amended good healthy soil and not poor soil made up of rocks, debris, sand, etc. 2) In R-6 Design Standard language, there is no addressing or encouraging landscaping to offset any carbon emissions. Most of the photos used in this R-6 Design proposals have very little vegetation and implicitly says to the developer that new proposals are not expected to landscape to encourage pollinators or trees to absorb carbon emissions. This needs to be addressed in the R-6 Design Standards as well. reply Agree0 Disagree0

In the R-6 Design Standards there should be a new section addressing 2 areas that are NOT being currently addressed in zoning or this document. 1) If it is considered R-6 infill, then this means adding soil. It needs to be stated that soil added to infill and new developments should be amended good healthy soil and not poor soil made up of rocks, debris, sand, etc. 2) In R-6 Design Standard language, there is no addressing or encouraging landscaping to offset any carbon emissions. Most of the photos used in this R-6 Design proposals have very little vegetation and implicitly says to the developer that new proposals are not expected to landscape to encourage pollinators or trees to absorb carbon emissions. This needs to be addressed in the R-6 Design Standards as well.

This is confusing.. If the Historic Board is the review authority for Alternate Design Standard, how can it appeal itself?

Couple of issues with this problematic paragraph in which it has too much loophole language that could be used by Review Authority to ignore the R-6 Design standard and principles. 1) The Review Authority should not have the right to determine other considerations for the proposed buildings if it is NOT specifically spelled out in this section. This is creating a loophole specifically to be used. 2) The Review Authority should not be allowed to determine the scope of the context to be considered. There is no specific example of scope determination to be considered and poses a loophole language opportunity. 3) Granting design flexibility when social and environmental public benefits are proposed. There are examples of this but for one example who exactly has the qualifications to deem a sustainable design best practices actually valid from what reliable and valid source?

It is not clear and it is inconsistent what is the definition of Neighborhood versus neighborhood. Back in Principle A, it talks about Neighborhood but does not provide clarification to what is the definition of Neighborhood really means. Is it a 2 block radius or abutters and existing block. It has been shown in previous proposals that 2 block radius is taken out of context most of the time.

What exactly is majority defined as? Is this to assume at least 51% of the Standards and Principles are met? Does this mean that Design Principles A and partial of B if addressed is okay? This was a problem in the past.

As it did in previous section of B-6 Massing Variation where it was 2 of the 5 elements that are required, should Principle E-Articulation also be required at least 2 of the 5 examples of bay windows, entry canopies, trim, cornices, expression lines?

This is a very misleading photo and there are several issues with this photo being used. 1) By taking the photo from the side, it looks like these 2 buildings are same massing and scale. They do not. 47 Monument St building which is the middle building in this photo if one looks at it directly head on, 47 Monument looks overbloated has takes up every inch of space on lot. This is perfect example of what NOT to do. 2) Due to the fact there are only 5 foot setbacks with this lot, the developer only left 5 feet between abutters. This raises a fire and safety issue because a fire ladder can NOT be raised to the 2nd floor windows between these buildings now. Per fire chief, there needs to be 10 feet between buildings to reach a 2nd story window. 3) Another issue with this photo is that 47 Monument was a 2 family building torn down for an oversized single family home which removed much needed affordable housing.

Why use 30 Merrill as an example? I believe this is 30 Merrill St which is notably not regarded as a particularly inviting in character or visually attractive to residents. This is not a good photo example to use. It also implies again using these treeless landscape less generic square box like buildings that this is being encouraged. It shouldn't.

This is confusing sentence. What does it mean that multi family with larger footprints are required to vary overall massing?

There is no verbiage regarding "eyes on street" or first floor occupied space addressed here. For example, should at least 50% of first floor space should be considered occupied and living space?

There should be a fee charged for every curb cut since it appears this design manual is encouraging garages and dead space on first floor.

2 issues with this section: 1) There should be at least 3 of the architectural elements used.. NOT only just two. 2) Why are all the pictures used in this section new square box style buildings? These building photos could be from generic anywhere USA. There should be photos used of existing buildings to illustrate dormers, balconies, recessed entries, and covered porches as well. There are plenty of examples on Munjoy Hill.

The Rooftop appurtenance section is very generic. It does not specify how high a rooftop appurtenance can be. This was section was specifically recommended by the R6 neighborhood organizations last May 2020 the below proposed language: Rooftop appurtenances, other than chimneys, shall not exceed the maximum height allowed by applicable R-6 dimensional standards, except that HVAC equipment may be permitted to exceed that height by a maximum of 5 feet above the primary roof so long as it meets the following criteria: HVAC equipment shall be set back at least 10 feet from any roof edge, shall be physically consolidated to the extent practicable, shall be visually contained in screening which does not exceed 5 feet in height above the main roof, and the screening shall utilize a shape and choice of materials that is consistent with the principal building.

I think it should be very clear what massing is in order for it to be calculated in a generalized manner. For example, the general massing formula = L x W x H.

This is a confusing and vague first sentence in this paragraph. What specific traditional existing buildings are multi-unit family buildings larger than? There are many existing multi unit buildings so why would the new building if a multi unit be larger than an existing multi unit building?

Massing should be specifically defined. For example, Massing = L x W X H. If not, massing consideration will continued to be ignored.

This is concerning that "Neighborhood" is not specifically defined. Is it a 2 block radius? Is it the surrounding abutters? Is it the abutters and the existing block? This definition needs to be clarified to stop any future vague interpretations made as to what "Neighborhood" is to mean.

Good first sentence in Purpose. Maybe this first sentence could be in bold in order to NOT be ignored?

It is not clear where the "specific multi-standards within R-6 Design principles and standards are located. Is it the small paragraph called Multi Standard on this same page on the right lower side of page?

In the Multi-Family paragraph, the last sentence is incomplete.

I understand this image was for showing design context which is great but is there a way to emphasize that street trees are important to street scape as well? In the past on Munjoy Hill, there have NOT been many street trees planted on new developments. The developers chose to pay a very low street tree waiver of $400/tree to NOT plant a street tree. I think this waiver needs to be eliminated. Portland is NOT the forest city any longer because of this easy and cheap opt out for developers.

Adding photos I think helps with more immediate design context but the photos are pretty bare of trees and vegetation which may influence developers to NOT ensure there is landscaping. There needs to be an expectation especially with climate change that trees and landscape are integrated in order to absorb carbon emissions and aid in cooling.

This statement is confusing as to which takes higher priority.. abutters or the surrounding neighborhood. In the old R6 design standards, it was stated special attention should be taken to abutters regarding neighborhood context. This new paragraph should state specifically that abutters are to have a higher priority than the surrounding neighborhood because developers ignored in the past special attention and deflected to rationalizing the proposed building "generally" fits in the surrounding neighborhood.

The lack of landscaping within this design document gives the impression that 100% lot coverage is preferred and desired within R6. This is reinforced by the photos selected for inclusion. Only two of 21 photos show buildings with landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (a critical cooling and stormwater management strategy) and 13 show no street trees. None seem to have courtyards or side yards with landscaping.

This document is really baffling in 2021. Where are the trees and landscaping that city residents want and value? Why does this document and its poorly chosen images promote 100% lot coverage with no landscaping? These document is working against the One Climate Future plan the city is working to enact. Why is the planning department not on board with One Climate Future?

All the images on both pages project a design aesthetic that creates a hot neighborhood with dirtier air. All the images on both pages need to be swapped for ones that shows landscaping and trees between the building and sidewalk. This type of 100% lot coverage shown is not desirable in a livable city and is no compatible with a world experiencing rapid climate change, rapid warming and increasing flooding events. Landscaping cools the air, slows stormwater, sequesters carbon and cleans the air. Why doesn't this document - and the zoning it is based on - reflect the city's One Climate Future plan?

Again, these images don't show a livable city. They show a hot city with dirty air and stormwater runoff problems. All the images on this page need to be swapped for one that shows landscaping and trees between the building and sidewalk. This type of 100% lot coverage shown is not desirable in a livable city and is no compatible with a world experiencing rapid climate change, rapid warming and increasing flooding events. Landscaping cools the air, slows stormwater, sequesters carbon and cleans the air. Why doesn't this document - and the zoning it is based on - reflect the city's One Climate Future plan?

All the images on this page need to be swapped for one that shows landscaping and trees between the building and sidewalk. This type of 100% lot coverage shown is not desirable in a livable city and is no compatible with a world experiencing rapid climate change, rapid warming and increasing flooding events. Landscaping cools the air, slows stormwater, sequesters carbon and cleans the air. Why doesn't this document - and the zoning it is based on - reflect the city's One Climate Future plan?

This image needs to be swapped for one that shows landscaping and trees between the building and sidewalk. This type of 100% lot coverage shown is not desirable in a livable city and is no compatible with a world experiencing rapid climate change, rapid warming and increasing flooding events. Landscaping cools the air, slows stormwater, sequesters carbon and cleans the air. Why doesn't this document - and the zoning it is based on - reflect the city's One Climate Future plan?

This image needs to be swapped for one that shows landscaping and trees between the building and sidewalk. This type of 100% lot coverage shown is not desirable in a livable city and is no compatible with a world experiencing rapid climate change, rapid warming and increasing flooding events. Landscaping cools the air, slows stormwater, sequesters carbon and cleans the air. Why doesn't this document - and the zoning it is based on - reflect the city's One Climate Future plan?

Massing or the size of the structure should only be governed through Zoning. Design Principles and Standards should not have any authority over the size of a building. Design Principles and Standards should discuss how that mass or size is presented. This totally negates and over-rides all the height, lot coverage, set-backs laid out in Zoning that are already designed to put limitations on the size of buildings. The appropriateness of that size is already thought through in the Zoning. The Design Manual should not interject subjective interpretation of these rules or impose further limitations that cannot be properly assessed by a party wanting to pursue a building project. This is subjective and lends itself to broad and inconsistent interpretation. This goes against the principles and goals of good governance, of creating reliable, replicable systems that create consistent results. This favors cronyism and furthers and reinforces inequities by creating an uneven playing ground. It transfers power of interpretation to a small group of people whose motivations cannot be known. I am afraid that people will interpret my concerns as bombastic but these are valid and important concerns that touch on many of the societal issues that are rearing their ugly head today. The Design Manual should stick to design, stay out of the neighborhood political battles and not contradict zoning. Simplify, don't further muddle the process. Additionally, the R-6 historically, since Portland's first Land Use Regulation, has been reserved for apartment buildings. This is how it was zoned. It is the only residential zone that allows multi-units and now 80% of it is covered by a Historical District and governed by the HPB. The GND put further impediments to home building in Portland that greatly favors SF homes and discriminates against projects of more than 9 units. If the City wants to limit homes of 2 or 3 units to no more than 35' than just create the language in zoning. Don't waste a property owners, architects, neighborhood people or the City staff's time with fighting this out based on the Design Manual. Don't set unreasonable expectations on either side of the coin.

I think something along these lines would set a clearer picture and more positive tone for the opening paragraph. Purpose: The intent of the R-6 Design Principles is to (a) elevate the standard of design and quality of construction of new development projects in the City and (b) to align development with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals to include: create more housing, support adoption of public transportation, build a more sustainable and equitable city. New development offers a unique opportunity to create new homes for people living in Portland. Well designed projects create great living spaces for the occupants of the homes and at the same time enhance, improve, protect and sustain neighborhoods. All of the people involved in the development process have a responsibility to create developments that improve the livability, sense of community, quality, sustainability and beauty of our City. This approach sets a tone of positivity but most importantly it is a much more likely to survive and stay relevant for the coming decade or two. New development is an opportunity to improve. If the City sets the tone that it is only a threat than that is how the public will respond. The City has a role in setting the tone and creating a positive climate for discussion and debate.

1. What is the area or zone of "compatibility"? This is very loaded and subjective language. It creates more problems than it solves. 2. This language incites people. I am not trying to be dramatic here. The City is creating problems by setting unrealistic expectations for lay people through ambiguous language. It is also irresponsibly creating an us vs. them mentality with the choice of language. It is putting all the responsibility on the developer when this is an inaccurate picture of how a project comes together. How a project looks is not determined by the desires of the "Developer" alone. There are a multitude of variables including financing restrictions, availability of labor or materials, timing of the project , cost of land, designers, engineers, etc. It is a team effort and the City guides and determines design more than any other stakeholder in the process. Much of what lay people complain about is caused by or exacerbated by current zoning and design standards. I don't see that this document is addressing these issues effectively. I think this lies in the fact that the problems have not been properly identified or defined. 3. How does the City allow for diversity of design when the design standards are setting the expectation that any deviation from what is already built in the neighborhood falls outside the definition of compatibility either in design, rhythm, mass, height, density or form (or the number of different sizes or types of windows)? Why would the design standards limit the area of comparison to 2 blocks? This is insufficient area of comparison and does not define any neighborhood. It is a poorly thought through and unrealistic limitation especially when there are so many other restrictions/limitations already in place (I am not arguing that these other rules should not be in place. I am simply pointing out that the Zoning already imposes the necessary rules in terms of mass/density/height, etc.). How does the City evolve and adapt to new technology, to changing demographics, to changing preferences to the needs to protect our environment? At times it was troublesome to me attending the workshops and listening to the conversation and the lack of discussion about thinking of the future. The past didn't have all the answers and yet it seems we are creating such ties to the past that we will not retain the flexibility or agility to respond appropriately or effectively to the pressing challenges of the future.

Should clarify "and may, in its sole discretion,"

Language is missing in A-2 so it is impossible to tell whether this incorporation by reference is appropriate. Again the two-block radius needs an exception for blocks that do not conform to the typical pattern of the street grid on Munjoy Hill -- it should be a radius of 2 blocks or ____ feet, whichever is less. In my opinion, Promenade East (or whatever it is called now) and Portland House should not be establishing the proper design context for any future R-6 development.

Isn't this circular? The review authority in the MHCOZ is the HPB. How can a different "review authority" render a decision that is appealed to the HPB?

Is the intent that a capital N Neighborhood means something different than lower case n neighborhood? Where is that defined? Is it being used consistently? I question the use of 2-block radius when the development pattern deviates from the contention small grain grid pattern of streets. For example, use of the block terminology in the vicinity of the large towers build on consolidated land sweeps in a lot of incongruous development as context. It would seem that there should be a maximum dimension on block where cross streets are greater than a typical distance away.

These 2 sentences are problematic. What unique characteristics of a given site or proposal would dictate that the neighborhood is different than a two-block radius? How would that establish a different scope? I would think the issue should be more that the structures/pattern of development within a two-block radius of the proposed development are not consistent with the character of the larger neighborhood. E.g., the megablocks between 33 Montreal Street and the towers at Promenade East are not characteristic of any positive features of the Munjoy Hill neighborhood as a whole, thus the Planning Board should disregard that as establishing a context for compatibility. I don't think that is what this language says even though it would be better.