First Wave ReCode Changes - Definitions, Zones, Uses, and Dimensional Standards

This would prevent the landlord of a single family home from building ADUs as additional rental units on the property. Presumably this is the city trying to curb the construction of dedicated Airbnb units, but that regulation can be accomplished elsewhere, without creating this unnecessary barrier on adding much-needed housing units.

It's not clear if either general 'retail' or specialty food services'. specifically includes grocers. Having walkable access to small scale grocers/food markets would be one of the main benefits of a zoning change like this—to allow daily necessities to be available in each neighborhood, without everyone in the city traveling to/from large, suburban-style grocery stores. Only utilizing the tiny handful of existing non-residential buildings around the city for an overly-restrictive set of uses makes this a change in name only.

The intent here is clear and sympathetic. But I've lived in studio apartments well below 500 feet, and if I hadn't had that option, I would've been homeless. It was cozy! I don't believe that Portland is at risk of tenement housing slumification, rather the opposite if anything - enforced luxury. If a unit is safe, who cares if it's small? That's our choice to live there, and sometimes its the difference between a warm bed and the street.

Why is there a restriction on minimum spacing between townhouses? We already have examples of contiguous townhouses in Portland (on Park Street and Danforth), and they're a more efficient use of land than most residential within the city.

The fact that this map is the only one available leads me to believe that the focus is, as ever, on trying to manhattanize the peninsula instead of encouraging reasonable middle-density housing across the city. We don't need skyscrapers, especially in our regulatory environment. We need the city as a whole to be brought up to parity with the most lovable neighborhoods in the city. Completely wrong-headed approach. I understand that the perception is that we peninsulars are less likely to object, but this poverty of confidence can't be allowed any further to choke our city. I wish a fraction of the effort here was put into upzoning the mainland.

As I mentioned elsewhere, stepbacks are aesthetic preference that are often presumed to be architecturally insignificant. This isn't the case. Each stepback requires significantly more load-bearing elements than would otherwise be necessary from an engineering point of view. The reduction in square footage, then, is even greater than it at first appears, not to mention the additional cost of construction. If we must have stepbacks, it should be at most a single stepback, and at a generous height.

This is an arbitrary restriction that serves no purpose other than to restrict the construction of denser housing in existing neighborhoods. As others have said, as long as the size would otherwise be allowable within other parts of the code, there's no reason for this additional layer of restriction.

All development in the city should be transit-oriented development. The language in these zones should be incorporated into the residential and mixed-used zones, and it's the city's responsibility to create a robust transit system (and non-motorized vehicular transportation) to encourages the resulting development.

B1, B2, B2b, and B3 need to be combined into a single zone, broadly following the language in B1, but without being restricted to 'limited areas' or 'small scale'. A truly complete neighborhood with walking access to daily shopping/service needs means allowing for smaller dispersed groceries/markets throughout the city, along with a mixture of other goods/services, both integrated into residential neighborhoods—without being developed into "shopping centers", which are inherently car-oriented and a bad use of land in a city environment.

All of these should condensed into two zones, with the only difference being maximum building heights. Making zones contingent on proximity to existing transportation routes (which by definition would change if/when we get to a higher density that can support more robust public transit), differentiated between on-peninsula vs. off-peninsula, or at all concerned with 'compatibility' and 'context' will just perpetuate the status quo, which is obviously not working.

This definition should be modified to exclude murals on building exteriors/windows, where the intent is entirely the art itself as an enhancement to the public space, and not as a sign in any way — or a separate definition should be added for public art/murals, to remove the ambiguity about which definition/regulations would be applicable.

How far within a space would a sign or graphic need to be for it to fall under the definition of a window sign, if this covers anything exposed to public view through a window? Would a mural graphic on the rear wall of a restaurant be considered a window sign? This should be clarified to mean a sign intended primarily for viewing from outside the window, along with a maximum distance from the interior surface of the window (something in the 5 foot range seems reasonable).

This should be made less specific to transparent-faced panels. Cabinet signs are often no longer made with transparent acrylic front faces as described—so a broader definition would also include push-through text and solid sign faces, for example.

What defines "pedestrian scale" in this case? This duplicates the projecting sign definition, unless that is intended for vehicular traffic (in which case more specifics are needed for intended sign audiences)

"Copy" is specific to text in the context of signage. Definition name should be "Sign Content" based on the descriptive text.

Why is this capped at two LED colors? For example, commonly-used faux-neon LED "OPEN" signs with a different color per letter would be non-compliant. This level of specificity is not needed, when illumination can be better regulated via the internal and external illumination definitions..

Canopy and awning sign definitions overlap (the awning definition already includes "canopy"), and should be condensed into one category.

This roadway definition overlaps with the definition of "street" (which is written more broadly to include all users), and should either be updated to specifically include both motorized and non-motorized users (cyclists) under the umbrella of "vehicular", or removed. Currently between the roadway and sidewalk definitions, cyclists have no clearly defined place within a public right-of-way.

Taller bulkheads (>24") should be considered.

At almost 3x the room size the common area appears excessive. Are there national examples of best practices for the ratio between room and common area?

As I understand it the current R-3 zoning (here reclassified as RN-2) is the largest (by area) zoning designation in our city, making up almost 1/4 of the square footage of Portland. If we do not make more significant allowances to this zoning type than what is in this draft document this effort will have a muted impact. This zone type deserves significant scrutiny additional loosening of the restrictions.

Not allowing recreational vehicles seems outdated. How about a limit on length instead, such as 24 ft and under.

A lot of really good work has been done to make this document more usable. Kudos to staff for all that work. It is obvious that a lot of thought and discussion has taken place. I believe there is room for improvement to more aggressively address urgent challenges like climate change, livability and affordability and availability of a multitude of home choices. Re-writing zoning code is a rare event having last been done 55 years ago. The stakes are high. So comments, by definition, are suggesting change and may have a tone of criticism but this process of collaboration is a healthy back and forth to seek clarity for the reasons behind decisions in the spirit of improving outcomes for Portland.

Define Storm. 0.5" of rainfall or greater within a 24-hour period. Then go on to clarify that Stormwater Detention does not contain water 48 hours after the end of a Storm.

Does not include retaining walls.

How can decking to build a deck not be included? How can the City allow deck railings and guards but not allow the deck itself? Why are decks not allowed on a rooftop? What problem is this solving? Who is deciding that roof decks are immoral or harmful? If the City doesn't want roof decks just say they are not allowed. It is very misleading to allow deck railings, which suggests that a building may have a roof deck, but not allow the actual decking itself. This is not making the code clear, conscise, easy to understand. When the decking is below the parapet does it really impact the neighborhood or neighbors? The answer is obviously no. So who thought this one up? Who is making the judgement that roof decks are bad? Roof decks are outdoor space. On multi-unit buildings, where people are using 435 sf or 725 sf of land per home, not 5000 or 10,000sf, and giving up a huge yard for their own personal use, the City is trying to restrict flexibility to create outdoor space. Effectively penalizing people who live in multi-home buildings. Encouraging single-family home purchase and suburban development patterns by making more urban neighborhoods less appealing. Why? How does this conform with the stated aspirations in the Comprehensive Plan? How is this equitable? How does this help address the issues of affordability and availability of homes? Why would decking that isn't even visible and doesn't add height to a building not be allowed? Especially after COVID and the lockdowns, where we learned that people need balconies and safe, private outdoor space would we be ignoring these lessons? I am not sure what the impetus is for this ommission to effectively disallow roof top decks. Especially when more height is needed to meet the challenges of climate change and reducing floor to ceiling heights is moving in the exact opposite direction of where we need to be heading. Baffling!!

Should this read General Office use so that it ties to the definition and land use table?

Include Office Use

Include" Office Use"

These heights are set by old, outdated thinking and a focus on single family homes. They do not take into consideration adaptations in building design and building methods, in response to climate change. Building entries may need to be a few feet higher to adapt to heavy rainfalls and flash flooding, building walls, floors and roofs are much thicker for insulation values, structural design flexibility, noise mitigation and higher floors to allow for more natural light in multi-home buildings. 45' doesn't allow for 4 floors in a well-designed, resilient, adaptable, high-performing multi-home building. Allowances need to be made. An extra 4-5' needs to be added when a building is built to certain performance standards. Not for the sake of extra height or another floor but to make buildings that are more livable, more sustainable and more resilient. It has no negative impact on the neighborhood, its character but it matters greatly to the people choosing to live in these homes, adoption by families desiring to live in multi-home buildings, creating walkable neighborhoods and fighting climate change. It is an easy and necessary change. So increase the height but limit the floors.

an approval date with conditions.

Why couldn't this be increased to 25' if the structure is 15' off the property line? Wouldn't this add to the design flexibility and value of ADUs making them more attractive w/out harming neighbors?

60% lot coverage is less than was historically allowed. Many of the older buildings covered 65% to 80% of the lot. People love that historical building pattern. If green roofs are used, multi-home buildings should be able to utilize 70-75% of the lot on lots less than 10,000sf.

Why should a building be limited to 75 feet? Look at historic homes around Portland, Maine and the Northeast. Many are 100 or 120 feet long and built 100 or 200 years ago. This puts a limit for underground parking, for multi-home buildings to 6 or maybe 7 on each side. This limits the attractiveness of multi-home living. We are in a period of transition, both in terms of reducing dependence on cars and on the stigma for families to live in apartments and condos. But to make a walkable neighborhood where businesses can survive and to combat climate change we cannot continue to put up barriers to multi-home projects. 1 parking space per unit is still going to be a minimum expectation for years to come. Because we don't have walkable neighborhoods yet. Underground parking is much preferable to surface parking. It allows for more homes and doesn't add to heat-sink and to impermeable surface. It should be accomodated not discouraged. Restrictions like this prevent the City from meeting climate and livability goals. It encourages single family, suburban type living and development patterns. Exactly the opposite of where we need to be heading. Why? If there is a limit, it should be no less than 95'. Same applies for width. It needs to accomodate 18" wall thickness, 20' each side for parking and the 24' aisle width so 67' for parking. Then let the architects, engineers and developers make the right decisions for the situation. Let the PB make exceptions if there needs to be compromise on lowering requirements for say aisle width. This flexibility will improve the quality of design and building.

Why add this provision? What problem does it solve? The extra costs and potential problems with water leaks associated doesn't make sense. Let architects, engineers and developers figure this out.

This is unnecessarily restrictive. Places of assembly have traditionally always been integrated into the residential neighborhood of the people assembling. The majority of our current religious buildings are in residential areas and this pattern makes sense. This requirement will dramatically reduce the number of possible parcels that can accommodate this use. This also feels designed to address the recent controversy around the Chabad house on Pomeroy Street. If that is the case, we should have a public conversation about the motivation behind this change and it's knock on effects. Though the situation was controversial, what they did was ultimately allowed. Neighbors are often frustrated by nearby development and the idea behind having zoning rules is to arbitrate those disputes. If you do something that was allowed, and by doing it, trigger a subtle change of the rules, it brings the reliability of those rules into question.

In the past, this has been interpreted to mean that a dwelling unit can only have one kitchen facility. This interpretation seems overly restrictive and it is not made clear in the definition. I feel this definition should be updated to explicitly allow that. I think the distinction between dwelling units is really the degree of separation from other dwelling units (i.e. separate lockable entrances).

Why limit this to 25%? Cottage courts sound amazing, why wouldn't we allow an entire cottage court development that is nothing but duplex units (meeting the other requirements), to help reduce per-unit costs and increase energy efficiency (shared walls)?

This seems like it may be a violation of LD2003. The additional units lots are entitled to are not secondary, they are units that must have the same dimensional standards applied.