Fwd: Comments on the proposed residential infill zoning amendments

[Linda Nettekoven]

Hi Everyone,

Here is another set of sample comments from a Buckman neighbor — building on the comments from UNR in case any of you are submitting individual testimony.  

Your e-mail comments should go to: resident...@portlandoregon.gov

Linda

Begin forwarded message:

From: Christine Yun <cpy...@gmail.com>

Subject: Comments on the proposed residential infill zoning amendments

Date: November 28, 2017 at 10:08:44 PM PST

To: residenti...@portlandoregon.gov

Cc: lind...@pdx.edu, MayorW...@portlandoregon.gov, ama...@portlandoregon.gov, d...@portlandoregon.gov, Commissioner Fish <ni...@portlandoregon.gov>, ch...@portlandoregon.gov

Reply-To: bhdis...@googlegroups.com

See below my comments on the proposed residential infill zoning amendments.

Scale of new houses

• In the single family zone, an FAR greater than 0.5 is not appropriate. For FAR greater than 0.5, the result will be more like townhomes. 
  
• Limiting the FAR will also prevent inappropriate heights. 
  
• Fully below-grade basements could be exempted from FAR. Half-basements or walk-out basements need to count toward FAR.
  
• Allowing internal conversions to save historic housing is a good idea. Street-facing facades must be preserved in an internal conversion.
  
• Ensure that creation of ADU's increases supply of owner-occupied or long-term rental property, and does not go toward increasing short-term rentals.
  

Housing Opportunity Overlay

• Creating more housing that is affordable and accessible is important.
  
• The blanket approach toward densifying does not respect the immense work that went into the Comprehensive Plan and wipes out all of the nuances in long-range planning that support Portland built character.
  
• As currently defined, the overlay will only precipitate demolition of historic, economically viable housing to line pockets of investors.
  
• The overlay does not take into account infrastructure.
  
• The overlay basically destroys single family house zoning and does not acknowledge the fact that single family home ownership/rental is desirable within the city; not allowing it puts pressure on the Urban Growth Boundary by people who want this housing choice.
  
• The concept of town centers, walkability and livability is not reflected in this blanket densification; this is not good planning. Planning is not just about housing.
  

Narrow lots

• Narrow lots do not support the architectural character of Portland except in Old Town. 
  
• Narrow lots will create a street wall of garage doors at pedestrian level, which is incompatible with current zoning code.
  
• Allowing narrow lot subdivision in R5 zones is UPZONING, which goes against City Council's recommendation and also contradicts the myriad zoning studies which took place during the Comprehensive Plan.
  

Conflict of interest

By allowing committee members on the RIP with self-serving interests, this zoning amendment project is benefitting those people at the expense of Portland's individual neighborhoods, historic character and livability. 

City Council's refusal to recognize this fact is inexcusable. In other cities and states, allowing committee participants who have a vested interest in the outcome of the committee recommendations is considered a crime.

I am deeply disappointed in the direction Portland has taken.

Sincerely,

Christine Yun

1915 SE Alder

Portland, OR 97214

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Buckman Historic Designation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bhdistrict+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bhdis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bhdistrict/CAMtQPp131PJcRC8L0pt8HYXvgiOWF6ZrENW8wjw2nd8Wd%2BRf1g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.