Land Use Code Evaluation

In 2017, Home Start, the affordable housing advocate on Peaks Island, presented several proposals for zoning changes to Jeff Levine and the Planning Office. These were a result of a study we commissioned by Planning Decisions to identify zoning changes that could support more affordable housing on Peaks Island. These recommendations had been reviewed at several community meetings prior to meeting with Jeff. One of the recommendations was about Accessible Dwelling Units and we're pleased that it was incorporated into Phase 1 of the ReCode. We were advised that the recommendation regarding Lots of Record should be postponed for consideration until the second phase of the Recode. So here we are. Briefly, this recommendation looks at small lots of record in existence before the overall zoning plan of 1985 and as such are not subject to the minimum lot sizes established in 1985. Most are around 5000 square feet and could be built on if not for the current setback requirements. Taking 40 feet for side setbacks from a 50 foot wide lot doesn't leave much room to build. Our recommendations only applied to properties in IR-2 that are on city water and sewer. They resemble in many ways the specifications set out in Table 7_C of the ReCode for R-5, creating "small lot development dimension standards". We hope you will consider proposing similar standards for lots of record in IR-2, and would welcome the chance to discuss this further. Thank you. Betsey Remage-Healey, President , Home Start

I second Jeff and Liz's statements. We should try to encourage the kinds of small mixed use corner stores like you see on Cumberland near Peppermint Park, or the kinds of first floor shops on Spring like Bao Bao, or Rose Foods on Forest Ave. If you've ever been to the North End or NYC small grocery stores that offer fresh produce are all over the place and should be key to a complete neighborhood.

I would take the opposite approach. If you want to go closer to the street the building height should go down. If you pull back from the curb your building height can increase.

The real beneficiaries of the boom in certification bodies are the certification bodies themselves. We don't need another layer of "administrative review" we need housing.

The real beneficiaries of the boom in certification bodies are the certification bodies themselves. We don't need another layer of "administrative review" we need housing.

What is meant here by "public expectations for future development"? Is this a nice way of saying "we'll listen to nimbys" or does it mean that we'll meet the goals of affordability, transportation, workforce development, diversity, inclusion, and adaptability?

Do we really need more "regulatory controls"? I feel like arduous (and largely trivial) regulations slow down housing production as much as anything.

The plan was vague on policy, especially "key policies" it was mostly about big picture goals.

Loose the word "traditional" is suggests bias.

Please get the facts right. Portland has shrunk while surrounding towns have grown. Check out the Demographics section of the wikipedia page: 1920 69,272 18.3% 1930 70,810 2.2% 1940 73,643 4.0% 1950 77,634 5.4% 1960 72,566 −6.5% 1970 65,116 −10.3% 1980 61,572 −5.4% 1990 64,358 4.5% 2000 64,249 −0.2% 2010 66,194 3.0% 2020 68,408 3.3%

"Authentic" should be more clearly defined.

All the best places have a dense mix of uses; so yes, light manufacturing is compatible with residential use. But also residential use can be placed in office and industrial parks. Why not?

Factual error. Portland is not growing. The population has been essentially flat c. 65,000 for 50 years down from its high of 77,000 in the 1950s (and probably much higher during WW2). When compared to national growth and county growth Portland is essentially SHRINKING while surrounding towns like Gorham and Scarborough are booming. This hurts us in so many ways including political representation.

I agree that single family zoning and minimum lot sizes should be eliminated to favore greater density, more walkability, more sustainability.

I absolutely think there should be public access to the water. At the very least allowing people to hand carry boats, fishing, or swimming improves the lives of people living in portland at little cost.

Increasing density by reducing lot size and setbacks in R-5 zones will support off-peninsula commercial development and enhance neighborhood character.

I fully support simplifying setbacks, making any height based setbacks relate to feet rather than stories, and reducing both side and front setbacks. I caution against reducing rear setbacks in the off peninsula residential zones. These areas were laid out on small lots with buildings on the street and abutting back yards. This creates a shared "airspace" that makes everyone's small yards feel bigger. Adding a taller building along the back of a property has an outsized impact in these areas.

Middle density housing can work in the less dense parts of Portland. Personally I'd say up to 3/4 unit in R1, R2, and R3, and up to 6 unit (3 story, 2 units per floor) in R4, R5, and R5a. but design standards are very important to it succeeding. Street focused buildings on smaller lots that integrate into the neighborhood (like currently exist around the city) will add to communities. Inward facing, multi building developments that don't interconnect with the surrounding neighborhood will not.

R-4 is not significantly better than single-family zoning. As we see here, the typical number of units in R-4 is 1. And this is in the West End! Conditional use approval simply raises the cost of housing for everyone. 4-unit housing needs to be allowed by right.

Single Family Zoning needs to be eliminated.

As has been previously mentioned, we should eliminate single-family zoning. In areas currently zoned for single-family housing height restrictions can be a way maintain the current aesthetic. These are (somewhat) appropriate restrictions to maintain the look and feel of a neighborhood. However, the number of units in a lot should not be restricted.

Measuring this in units seems backwards to me. There is a difference between 20 one-bedroom units and 20 four-bedroom units. Units don't create density. People create density. If we want a mix of housing stock (different sized units in each area) we should tie this number to people instead of units.

This seems like it would eliminate flexibility. Revisions to the code should enhance flexibility.

Neighborhoods need to change overtime. We should eliminate setbacks in residential areas across the city. Neighborhoods will change slowly overtime. Residential setbacks force land to be used for grass when it could otherwise be used to house people or businesses. Right now that is unconscionable.

Dense housing is sustainable housing. To me this 2.A is hollow and doesn't get to the root cause. Living in a walkable neighborhood is the most sustainable decision that anyone can make. There are no number of solar panels or energy efficient building codes that will offset the environmental impact of a commute. Conditioning density on energy efficiency is backwards.

Instead of a carve out for this one specific type of commercial space, we should expand it for most if not all commercial uses.

Expanding the areas where we allow this type of housing would eliminate the problems of lack of clarity.

Why wouldn't this include in-patient or overnight care? Consider a recovery home for a person experiencing an opioid withdrawal. Allowing these units to operate in residential areas will greatly cut down the costs and most of these services look no different from a traditional home. In-patient services are crucial because it allows counselors and therapists to see the person at the home without requiring the person in recovery to find transportation.

"Character" meaning people not exclusionary zoning.

Thinking about this in just the R-6 zone is short sighted and small. This is a policy that can and should be implemented city wide.

It should be explained here that the goal is less zones and not more zones.

People like these housing options because they are affordable and sustainable. Affordable and sustainable housing is "contextually appropriate" in every part of the city.

Eliminate single family zoning

The density described in this section should be the lowest density in the code