City-wide Land-Use

Critique of Title 34

Author: Amanda Fritz

Clear improvements for neighbors:

Tree preservation and environmental review criteria
Additional application requirements for development on landslide hazard areas
More specificity about what services are required - streets, parking, stormwater management, etc.
Public access easements on private streets and pedestrian connections
Matching building coverage standards with lot size instead of by zone
Specific standards for changes that may be approved during the permitting process prior to Final Plat.

Clear problems for neighbors:

Allowing lot sizes that are half the size of current zoning removes predictability for neighbors, changes the purpose of zoning, and creates lots sizes currently prohibited even with an adjustment. While small lots can be created in Planned Unit Developments now, the new proposal removes public input into what will fit with the adjacent neighborhood
Less public input into making discretionary decisions in the land use review process - less notice, less time to comment, fewer appeals -- despite a more complicated code
Increased density allowed by right, without assessing carrying capacity of the land, availability of public services, or neighborhood compatibility
Allowing development of attached and multifamily housing by right in constrained areas, without any assessment of the potential impact on the adjacent neighborhood or availability of services such as transit or parks. The proposal does not go far enough in discouraging or reducing development on hazardous sites.
Common open space/recreational areas required only for developments over 100 units
All solar access requirements are eliminated
Availability of public services ceases to be an approval criterion for approval/denial
Some of the standards for transportation services to the site are meaningless
Water bodies not covered by e-zones no longer have to be left in their natural state
Deletion of Compatibility Standards for small lots
Eliminates the PUD code, without substituting an alternative that is clearly better
Many lists of standards, but no overall approval criteria to decide whether the parts add up to a pleasant place to live and/or work, that enhances rather than detracts from the neighborhood.

Debatable:

Grading limits - the Recommended Draft seems to allow grading for almost any reason
Flag lots may only be developed in limited circumstances
Changes to Plan District regulations in Johnson Creek and the NW Hills
Landslide hazard area map has not been reviewed by the public, and may set unnecessarily onerous requirements for sites with little landslide potential
Street connectivity standards are less specific than current code in many areas (and 2040 area maps were not available for public review)
Implementation of Metro density requirements in R1 and R2 developments

Street improvements are provided at the expense of setting the appropriate density for the rest of the site. The proposal assumes streets average 15% of the site, whereas Metro sets aside 22%. The density allocation is set on the theoretical assignment, regardless of how much land the streets actually consume. In some cases, this will result in more units being allowed than in the current code.

Meeting the Base Zone Design Standards, which limit the width of the garage in relation to the rest of the front facade, will be more difficult if the minimum lot width is reduced 40% or more compared with current code. For example, the current minimum lot width in the R5 zone is 50 ft. The proposal reduces this requirement to 30 ft. Since the required side setbacks remain 5 ft, a house on such a lot can only be 20 ft wide, which will mean even a single car garage at 12' will be more than half the length of the house. While a specific exemption was written into the BZDS to allow this situation, the small lot sizes proposed in the new land division code do not have to meet any supplemental neighborhood compatibility standards, so there will be no mitigation to ensure the new house fits in with the adjacent neighborhood.

"Gives developers the opportunity to develop in a manner that is more sensitive to the unique characteristics of each site and neighborhood" is listed by the BOP as a benefit of the proposed code. In fact, the new code allows developers the opportunity to divide the land to maximize profit, without any consideration of the unique characteristics of the neighborhood. It removes criteria in the current code that allows mitigation of impacts on the adjacent neighbors, and also those that require assessment of adequacy of public services. While the new code is more flexible for developers, it provides less predictability for neighbors. And since public input opportunities are generally reduced, compared with the current code, there will be fewer opportunities and less applicable code language enabling neighbors to affect the outcome.


Process problems

The BOP claims the process is "front-loaded", with more application requirements and "more time to evaluate the information." In fact, the time allocated for neighborhood comment is the same, despite the increased volume of application information required. The new Type IIX procedure allows more time for staff to process the application, not more time for neighbors to review the file and provide input. Bureaus are given more time to comment, but their reports do not have to be available during the brief period allocated for neighborhood review. This will likely result in significant changes being made to the subdivision design, after the neighbors comment period closes but before the decision is written, which in turn will result in more frequent appeals. And we still won't get 14 days in which to comment, as required by state law.

The proposal would lower the level of review for many land divisions, which would reduce the distance from the site that neighbors are notified, and decrease the time for public comment. Some applications that are currently processed under a Type 3 review, with a full hearing and an opportunity to appeal to the City Council, will be reviewed under a Type 1 process, with a short period to comment in writing, no hearing, and no appeal except to the state Land Use Board of Appeals. Neither neighborhood contact meetings nor pre-application conferences would be required for Type 1 applications, which can include any number of units as long as the number of lots is ten or less (remember, lots can be developed with multifamily housing). Whether or not an application requires construction of a street would no longer affect the level of review and public input.

In areas designated "potential landslide hazard area" on a new map that was only recently distributed for public review (it is now available in the neighborhood coalition offices), there will be more public review than the current code requires. In these areas, which include most of the west side of town, all developments (even minor partitions of one lot into two) will be Type 3s. Sites on the potential landslide hazard map have no minimum density requirement, even if the geotechnical evaluation shows there is no landslide hazard on that particular property. The proposal does not address how this might affect Portland's ability to meet its regional responsibility to accommodate infill housing within the UGB, or the inequity of public process opportunities comparing the east side of the city with the west.


Additional density in neighborhoods

There are five main ways additional density will be developed in neighborhoods:

i) Lots which are currently built out will become dividable. For example, say you live in an R5 zone, with a current minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet (sf). Your neighbor has an oversized lot, 8,750 sf, with the house built 35' from yours. Under the current code, in order to split off a new lot next to yours, your neighbor would need adjustments to maximum density (one unit per 5,000 sf) and minimum lot width (50'), which might not be granted since the code now states "lot sizes larger than the minimum is not a hardship". Under the proposed code, your neighbor would be allowed to split off a lot and squeeze in another house next to yours, by right with no neighborhood input or additional design compatibility standards. The proposed new minimum lot size is half the current base zone size, with minimum widths reduced to 30' in higher density single family zones, 40' in lower density single family zones.

ii) Maximum density will be automatically rounded up, when the remainder from dividing the site area by the zone requirement is 0.75 or more. The Metro Homebuilders believe this will generate many additional housing units across the city.

iii) New minimum density requirements in the R1, R2, and R3 multi-family zones. R 2 and R3 have not previously had minimum density requirements, and the minimum density in the R1 zone is increased from 1 unit per 2,000 sf site area to 1 unit per 1,450 sf site area.

iv) The proposal would allow attached and multi-family development in environmental zones, flood hazard areas and slopes greater than 15%, by right. Under the current code, minimum density is waived in these areas, and in the single family zones alternatives to single family development require additional public review. So currently, such applications may be denied based on compatibility and adequacy of services in the surrounding neighborhood. Although minimum density would still be waived on these sites in the new code, its effect may be to encourage development to maximum density on constrained sites.
v) The new code assumes 15% of a site for streets. If more street area is needed, that currently reduces the number of units allowed, but won't in the future. Also, widening an existing right-of-way doesn't count as creating a street, so there is no deduction of land from the allowed density on those sites. There is less incentive for skinny streets in the proposal.


Compatibility of lot size and layout

The new code does not discuss, require or ensure compatibility. There is no assessment of the character of the surrounding neighborhood in the proposed code, nor any requirement to ensure that lots fit in with the existing pattern. The proposal removes the Compatibility Standards for Substandard Lots, which currently require additional attention to design features that match neighboring properties, for development on lots sized out of character for the zone. The proposed minimum lot size is half the current minimum, allowing lots to be created by right that are currently prohibited, too small to be allowed even with an adjustment. It then claims these new lots are automatically compatible with existing development.


Housing types in a single dwelling zone

All types will be allowed, on many sites. This proposal changes the purpose of zoning in Portland. Many of the remaining vacant/underdeveloped sites in the city are constrained by slopes, stream corridors, or floodplains. All of these may be built with attached or multi-family development by right, under the new proposal. And since the current code allows development of pairs of attached homes in any single family zone, the effect of reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum widths will be to encourage more of this type of housing. Under the current code, neighbors at least have the right to comment on how different lot sizes and housing types will affect the surrounding neighborhood. In the new proposal, they won't.


Other Problems

I don't believe the proposed Code is going to work for developers or staff, either.

It's a one-size-fits-all code, so in fact it will fit very few. Smaller infill partitions (one lot into two or three) have to wade through the same requirements as huge subdivisions on raw land.
The planner in the Permit Center and those reviewing the case have to make many judgment calls, starting with deciding which type of review process the application must follow.
Organization of the code is more confusing and difficult to follow than the current code, especially for Planned Developments. The approval criteria should be included in the same section as the application requirements and standards, as in the current code.
It doesn't have a distinct process for Expedited Land Divisions, as required by state law.
It doesn't address some of the problems the rewrite was supposed to fix, such as street plans for superblocks in East County.
Approval criteria language is unclear, like "acceptable" for landslide risk. What does that mean? How do applicants, staff and neighbors help decide what's "acceptable"?