City-wide Land-Use

December 1999

Meeting minutes

The following is a summary from the 12/27/99 Citywide Land Use Committee meeting (a group of neighborhood land use chairs).

The turnout for the Monday between Christmas and New Year was impressive. Citizens attended from Bridgton, Centennial, Crestwood, Cully, CTLH, Hayhurst, Hazelwood, Multnomah (2), Pleasant Valley, Russel, Sunnyside (2), Sullivan's Gulch, West Portland Park, and Wilkes (2), also the land use specialists from the SW and NW neighborhood coalition offices. Three staff from the BOP, and David Lane, Director of ONI, were also present for the Title 34 discussion.

The meeting started with a discussion of the draft OPDR (Office of Planning and Development Review) fee waiver form for Neighborhood Associations when appealing a land use decision. Susan Feldman presented the draft form which as been looked at by various staff as well as given to neighborhood coalition representatives. It is not a new rule or policy, merely making it more obvious and user friendly. There were a number of questions and Susan stated she would be happy to continue improving the form and offering further clarification of definitions.


Amanda Fritz led a discussion of Title 34 revisions from a neighborhood perspective.
Amanda began the discussion with asking each attendee what their concerns with the rewrite of Title 34 as it stands today.


The Top Ten Problems the land use folks present agree are major issues in the Land Division Code (Title 34) proposal are:

1. Decreased opportunity for public input into land divisions. More applications will be processed as Type I reviews, which provide no required Neighborhood Contact Meeting, no Pre-application conference, and no opportunity for appeal within the city.

We believe most applications should continue to be Type II, with potential appeal to the hearings officer. The most important should remain Type III, with potential appeal to Council. Only the simplest land divisions should be Type I, as current practice.

2. Decreased lot size, to half the current standard, allowed by right. Much narrower lot widths allowed by right.

We aren't opposed to smaller lots, but there should be appropriate public input into deciding where they are appropriate, and how they can be made compatible with the neighborhood.


3. The proposal allows too much flexibility by right. We like the current PUD process, standards, and approval criteria. We want new subdivisions that have the characteristics of PUDs to be processed like PUDs, with public input and appropriate approval criteria that address the overall relationship of the subdivision in relation to the site and the neighborhood. We want to see design considered in subdivisions - both the design aspects of lot layout in relation to the features of the site, and the design of buildings to be placed on odd-sized lots. The current proposal allows PUD-sized lots without considering what buildings will be placed on them in the way that the current PUD code does.

4. We want impervious surface limitations - maximum lot coverage standards, not just maximum building coverage, in all zones. This is absent from the proposal, and should be added.

5. The threshold for required recreational space in the proposal is 100 units, which is much too high. 10 or 20 units would be better. We want common open space requirements like current PUDs.

6. The proposal eliminates Compatibility Standards for buildings on small lots from Title 33. We need more design standards, not less.

7. Minimum and maximum density requirements are of great concern, in both single family and multifamily zones. The city should be providing neighborhoods with more opportunities to discuss and affect how density will be fitted into existing neighborhoods, not less.

8. Neighborhood character, predictability for existing residents, and preservation of the purpose of zoning should be valued and protected. We are concerned that the proposal so overwhelmingly misses and/or overrules what is most important to neighbors.


9. We agree with SWNI that the project should be delayed and sent back to the Planning Commission for a major reworking.

10. We are concerned that this will be the first project for the new Planning Director, and we want to approach it in a positive, constructive manner. We respect the Mayor's choice for the new leader of planning, and hope the Council will direct him to work with us on a completely revised proposal.

Additional issues of concern cited by neighborhood representatives include:

* The timing of this process is abysmal. Expecting neighbors to review and comment on a document of this magnitude over Thanksgiving and Christmas is unfair.

* Neighborhood livability is key, but does not seem to be addressed

* The proposal increases density in at least five ways, without assessing the adequacy of public services or the carrying capacity of the land.

* There should be some overall approval criteria that address whether the purpose of the subdivision regulations are met, like the current PUD code. Not just determining whether each of the development standards are met.

* Increased use of easements, without specifying how those easements may affect adjacent private property owners, is of great concern.

* The multiple changes to Title 33 need to be looked at more closely.

* Consider making some standards in Title 33 not adjustable, such as building setbacks once the lot has been created that is too small.

* Why is the city increasing density via this project?

* The design of the subdivision should ensure that it fits into the landscape. Decide what to build first, then design the subdivision around that.

* No connection with neighborhood character

* The proposal is precipitous, and doesn't address the questions it should regarding density issues

* Neighborhoods want a say in how density happens. The PUD process is better than this proposal

* Fences, buffers, and landscaping are important and are not appropriately addressed

* Safety issues?

* Neighbors want to continue to be involved in making service decisions when the subdivision is PUD-like, because of the degree of discretion involved and the inter-related, multiple decisions being made.

* The proposal reduces the democratic process while increasing development. Why?

* While we agree with the desire to make good development easier to approve, we think the proposed code doesn't make bad development difficult enough.

* We should go back to the fundamental questions of what we're trying to achieve and how best to get there. Tinkering with this proposal isn't going to get at those basic questions.

 We need to let City Council know how we feel, by showing up at the Council hearing the evening of February 16. We will also discuss this issue again at the next Citywide Land Use Committee meeting.

The next meeting will be held on January 31st at 7 PM in the Pettygrove room of City Hall and will include a short discussion of the Civic Stadium situation and the proposed Good neighbor agreement followed by continuing the strategizing for the Title 34 City Council session, currently scheduled for February 16th.