×

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

Amy Johnson May 17 2024 at 9:30AM on page 38

Content
I was looking for a definition of "short term rental". In which zones are they allowed?
0 replies

Sam Lebel May 16 2024 at 8:51AM on page 56

Content
Multifamily should be added as an allowable use for ground up construction as it is in the existing code.
0 replies

Sam Lebel May 16 2024 at 8:43AM on page 111

Content
This is a brand new requirement for this zone and will cause issues with the viability of projects. There are a number of successful projects built in this zone with facades longer than 60' due to the lot geometry. This new requirement represents a barrier to the creation of new housing. If a project is still able to work on a larger lot by creating multiple buildings then it means less units/amenity space and higher construction costs per SF which ultimately get passed on to the future residents. Please consider eliminating this new requirement, or at least significantly increasing the dimension of 60'.
0 replies

Sam Lebel May 16 2024 at 8:37AM on page 111

Content
This is an increase from 20% under the existing code and represents additional challenges in creating housing. Recommend maintaining the current 20% open space requirement for residential uses.
0 replies

Sam Lebel May 16 2024 at 8:36AM on page 65

Content
Strongly encourage that multifamily be a fully permitted use and not just a conditional use for conversion of existing structures. Under the existing code, the PRUD model allows for ground up multifamily construction in this zone. There will no longer be that option since the PRUD is being eliminated under ReCode. Not allowing new multifamily structures in the RN-4 is counterintuitive to addressing the housing shortage and is going backwards in comparison to the existing code.
0 replies

Ben Shields May 15 2024 at 10:56AM on page 328

General Comment
This might be a controversial suggestion but shouldn't parks and open spaces have a designated maximum parking area?
0 replies

Ben Shields May 15 2024 at 10:40AM on page 316

Content
Affordable Housing Fee reductions should be expanded such that development fee discounts and building permit fees continue to decrease as % of low income/workforce new units goes beyond 25%. This seems arbitrarily low for a threshold and this table should have additional rows for housing with much greater than 25% of low income/workforce new units.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 1:51PM on page 125

Content
New parking garages should not be exempt from the minimum height requirements.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 1:24PM on page 120

Content
In addition to the small unit bonus, there should be a bonus if the cottage court "provides mid-block permeability with public access in the form of a continuous path of travel with a minimum clear width of 10 feet between two streets."
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 1:20PM on page 120

Content
The bonus should be 35% and the bonus should not be capped at three. This is unnecessarily confusing and goes against the goals of the cottage court development.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 1:15PM on page 119

Content
This restriction is vague and unclear. It is also unnecessary because the residential zones already have lot coverage requirements. At a minimum the word "hardscape" should be replaced with "impermeable"
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 12:06PM on page 98

Content
This should be Table 6-H rather than Table 6-I
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 12:04PM on page 95

Content
The requirement that farmstands be set back 15 feet is overly restrictive and should be removed.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 9:15AM on page 113

Content
Maximum gross floor area should be eliminated
0 replies
in reply to Jeff Sherman's comment

Jeff Sherman May 14 2024 at 9:03AM on page 110

Content
Additionally, street frontage requirements should be waived if the property owner acquires an easement to access the property.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 3:37PM on page 92

Content
This subsection should be eliminated. The city's goals are met by restrictions on what types of home occupations are allowed. This restriction is superfluous.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 3:36PM on page 92

Content
This subsection should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 2:42PM on page 51

Content
Notice should be limited to only abutters
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 1:48PM on page 6

Content
The requirement that notice be published in a newspaper should be eliminated. Notice should be allowed via the city website / social media accounts.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 1:43PM on page 128

Content
2 Suggestions: (1) "may" should be changed to "shall" or "must." (2) "provided the front setback or build-to zone is met to the maximum extent practicable" should be changed to "provided the front setback or build-to zone is met to the extent reasonably practicable."
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 1:23PM on page 113

Content
There should be no minimum lot size in the B-4 zone.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 10:26AM on page 110

Content
Rear setbacks in RN-3 and RN-4 should be changed to 10 ft.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 10:20AM on page 110

Content
Street frontage minimums should be eliminated in the RN-7, RN-6, RN-5, and RN-4 zones. In all other zones the street frontage minimums should promote incremental growth and infill development. Consider changing the minimum frontages to 20-25 feet in all other zones (RN-1 - RN-3) to encourage more flag lots.
1 reply

Jeff Sherman May 13 2024 at 9:12AM on page 68

Content
Public restrooms should be permitted in all Mixed-Use zones.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 4:33PM on page 294

Content
The city should also be able to use impact fees for maintenance of existing infrastructure.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 4:32PM on page 292

Content
Impact fees should be based on the square footage of the lot and not on how many new units are built.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 4:31PM on page 65

Content
There should be no new single family housing built in the RN-5 zone. This restriction could be waived with a fee.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 4:21PM on page 90

Content
This restriction should not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 4:20PM on page 90

Content
This restriction should be eliminated. Alternatively, the word "clearly" should be replaced with "reasonably"
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 3:52PM on page 260

Content
If this requirement is waived, developers should have to pay an additional transportation fee.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 3:47PM on page 93

Content
This restriction should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 3:21PM on page 305

Content
The height restrictions should be eliminated. There are already height restrictions in the underlying zones.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 3:16PM on page 300

Content
Installation of energy efficient windows should be exempt.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 2:51PM on page 325

General Comment
Section 18.1.3 should be separated into 2 sub sections to make it easier to read. (i) Waterfront Zone and (ii) Any Zone.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 2:49PM on page 326

Content
The word "appropriate" should be changed to "necessary" or "essential."
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 2:26PM on page 321

Content
The fund should be able to provide low interest or below market rate loans to Portland residents who want to build affordable ADUs on their property. For these loans, the term of affordability should be "until the loan is repaid in full"
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 2:17PM on page 318

Content
Additionally, developers should be able to pay a fee to the Housing Trust Fund to lessen the amount of time the units must stay affordable.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 2:15PM on page 318

Content
The requirement that the finishes and amenities demonstrate general parity is vague, burdensome, and does not promote the creation of more workforce units. This requirement should be eliminated.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 2:12PM on page 318

Content
This requirement is confusing and unnecessary it should be eliminated or significantly rewritten for clarity.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 2:05PM on page 317

Content
Notice should just be required for adjacent properties.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:48PM on page 313

Content
The unit size requirement shouldn't apply if the developer builds more units than are being lost.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:42PM on page 174

Content
This requirement should be eliminated. On-street parking should be permitted if it reduces the overall number of parking needed.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:37PM on page 150

Content
This should be changed from "the amount of parking required" to "the maximum amount of parking allowed."
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:36PM on page 158

Content
Publicly accessible corridors should also include bicycle infrastructure.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:28PM on page 170

Content
This should be changed from "the amount of parking required" to "the maximum amount of parking allowed."
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:27PM on page 170

Content
This should be changed to 60% to reflect the changes to the residential zones.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:24PM on page 173

Content
This should be changed from "the amount of parking required" to "the maximum amount of parking allowed."
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 1:19PM on page 282

Content
This requirement should be for blocks of any size and not just for blacks in excess of 800 feet in length.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 11:55AM on page 282

Content
Whenever there is a development where the rear setback of residential lots abuts the rear setback of another set of residential lots, the Planning Board should require an easement or the creation of a path that is a minimum of 20 feet wide between the rear setbacks of the two streets. This should be a requirement and not up to the planning board. This will create alleyways that will allow for future infill development along the rear setbacks and will create alternatives for pedestrians and cyclists who wish to avoid vehicle traffic.
0 replies

Jeff Sherman May 10 2024 at 11:35AM on page 256

Content
(1) Fees should be waived or significantly reduced for affordable housing development. (2) The Planning Board should set a fixed fee (or a maximum fee) for all residential developments (1-4 units).
0 replies
View all