91ÊÓƵ

Basically, two options exist for residential development, according to one active developer in Northwest Portland.

“To put it very simply, you have a choice: either suburban sprawl or urban density,” said Martin Kehoe, the owner of Kehoe Northwest Properties. “I’ve always been a fan of density rather than sprawl.”

In March, Kehoe purchased two lots on Northwest 24th Avenue for $1.5 million, with plans to deconstruct the two existing homes and build seven row houses in their place. However, one of the existing buildings is a 102-year-old Victorian home, and neighbors are horrified to think it could be demolished.

Throughout Portland, infill developers are at odds with neighbors resistant to such efforts. Nevertheless, growth requires space, and only a finite amount is available.

“Part of what we’re seeing is that maybe as a region we’ve entered a new phase of evolving as a metropolitan area,” said Ted Reid, a senior regional planner at Metro. “For a long time the character of Portland and other cities in the region was a collection of neighborhoods. And we still have that, but there seems to be something new happening now where it feels like we’re becoming more of a real city, and with that comes some growing pains.”

City slickers

From 2007 to 2012, 58 percent of new, metro-area residential units were built as redevelopment or infill projects. Reid said that trend has been building for a while.

From 1998 to 2012, while more than 31,400 acres were added inside the urban growth boundary, 94 percent of new residential construction occurred within the original 1979 boundaries. Development on the fringe can present political and financial challenges, but Reid said there’s a bigger dynamic at play.

“My view is that people want to live close to shops and restaurants and businesses, and they’re voting with their feet,” he said.

Vic Remmers, the owner of Everett Custom Homes, is one of many Portland homebuilders taking notice. His company primarily redevelops single-family lots in the urban core, and last year built 40 homes. This year it plans to build 80.

Remmers prides himself on neighborhood outreach, and said residents typically support his projects because they often involve replacement of neglected houses with new, high-end homes. However, he’s not immune to the growing opposition.

“I think everybody thinks (the UGB is) an asset and a good thing,” he said. “But what that does, and what it’s doing now, is it’s just creating more density closer in, and it’s creating a lot of change in the city the last five years. I think change is hard for some folks in certain situations.”

Remmers recently purchased a 3,500-square-foot home in Eastmoreland for $529,000. He planned to deconstruct the house and build two in its place, but neighbors – worried that the project would set a precedent for increased density – rallied against him.

After extensive research, residents found a legal precedent that could have prevented Remmers from subdividing the property. Before the issue went before Portland City Council, he agreed to abandon the project and sell the property to residents.

Advantageous conditions

Robert McCullough, president of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association, doesn’t blame Remmers for the scuffle. Instead, McCullough blames the city: He believes planners have been rezoning Portland’s neighborhoods on the sly.

“Quietly, zoning moves from R5 to R3.5,” he said of a shift that allows greater density. “That seems like a minor change unless your life savings are sitting in the house, because what you thought was a very stable neighborhood can be urbanized without your input, or knowledge, or any input about your welfare.”

But Eric Engstrom, principal planner for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, said the city hasn’t conducted large-scale zone changes in many years. Builders, he said, are only now taking advantage of zoning that has existed for 20 to 30 years.

Meanwhile, infill development activity is up proportionately, but subdivision activity isn’t. Between 2001 and 2008, landowners created approximately 740 new plats per year, according to BPS data. From 2009 to 2013, the average dropped to approximately 177. The number of partitions – lot divisions based on pre-existing plats – remained relatively flat.

High-density zoning is supposed to accommodate Portland’s population, which is expected to grow by 280,000 people by 2035. McCullough questions the accuracy of such a forecast, but added that if the region must grow, it should be in appropriate areas. Instead of focusing on well-established communities like Eastmoreland that don’t want change, he thinks municipal leaders should increase density in cash-strapped communities, like Lents, that need it.

A forum exists for those suggestions. The city of Portland is engaging citizens in its comprehensive plan update. A draft is due in July.

A potential compromise?

For John Bradley, the land use planning committee chairman of the Northwest District Association, Kehoe’s proposed project on Northwest 24th Avenue is something of an enigma.

“It is an old home, but it’s really a grand, old home, and it’s part of the fabric of our neighborhood,” Bradley said. “It’s been there for 100 years. And so you scratch your head and you think … ‘Why would someone want to tear that down?’ ”

But because of limited housing in Northwest Portland, Kehoe’s three-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bathroom units could fetch $750,000 to $1 million each.

Neighbors have initiated a 35-day delay until demolition can begin. At a recent neighborhood meeting, Kehoe explained that demolition was not his preference. He looked into the possibility of moving the house – he’s moved more than a dozen over the past 20 years – but it wasn’t financially feasible.

Nevertheless, following the somewhat contentious meeting, Kehoe decided to evaluate whether it would be economically feasible to reduce the number of units and build around the old Victorian home.

During the meeting, one resident posed another option. She asked if Kehoe would be willing to sell.

“Can I just ask you a number?” she asked. “What number would it take?”

“Loopholes” causing angst

Some stakeholders in Portland-area infill development activity say the permitting process has “loopholes.”

For instance, demolition permits are subject to a 35-day delay so that neighboring residents can be notified and potentially take action; however, if homebuilders apply for the demolition and building permits at the same time, they can proceed straight away.

Anne Dufay, executive director at the Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Coalition, said that’s become the rule – not the exception – for infill builders. Plus, a lack of remodeling rules “has led to remodeling by bulldozer,” she said. “So they leave a stick standing and then they call it remodeling after knocking the house down.”

Dufay said neighborhood frustration has led numerous associations to coordinate a response. They’re hoping to appeal to the Development Review Advisory Committee – a group of citizens (mostly homebuilders) who advise the city about its permitting processes. Additionally, Central Northeast Neighbors on May 6 will host a meeting to raise awareness of the issues; it will take place beginning at 7 p.m. at 4415 N.E. 87th Ave.

Eric Engstrom, principal planner for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability said the mayor’s office has asked his bureau to research the problem. – Lee Fehrenbacher