91视频

It has been widely reported that by 2035, the number of households in Portland will grow 鈥巄y more than 100,000. Various ideas have been floated 鈥� both by the 鈥巆ity and by private developers 鈥� to address the expected housing boom: inclusionary housing, 鈥庘�庘�渢iny homes,鈥� rent control, to name a few.

Not surprisingly, many of the city鈥檚 ideas have been met by opponents arguing that these 鈥渁ffordable housing鈥� options do more harm than good. For example, 鈥巗ince passage in 2016 of Senate Bill 1533, which allowed the city of Portland to mandate that 鈥巇evelopment projects with 20 or more dwelling units participate in the inclusionary housing 鈥巔rogram, new multifamily construction has fallen to almost zero. Without more 鈥巋ousing units being delivered, simple supply and demand theory suggests that the affordable 鈥巋ousing problem would only be compounded.

The latest solution proposed by the city of Portland is its Residential Infill Project. The idea is to take a fresh look at the rules and regulations that govern the 鈥巘ypes and sizes of homes allowed in Portland neighborhoods. Like other previous solutions, the Residential Infill 鈥嶱roject has been widely criticized by developers and homeowners. If implemented as written currently, the rules would: 1, limit the sizes of houses in the R7, R5, and R2.5 zones by establishing 鈥巃 limit on house size using a floor area ratio (FAR) calculation; 2, revise how height is 鈥巑easured (e.g., measure from the lowest point near the house and not the highest point); 3, increase 鈥巖esidential setbacks; and 4, change building designs (e.g., limit how high a front door can be above 鈥巊round).

But the Residential Infill Project isn鈥檛 all bad. It includes at least one proposal that can give 鈥巈ven the most skeptical developer or homeowner hope. The proposal would create a new 鈥庘�庘�淎dditional Housing Options鈥� overlay zone in the R7, R5 and R2.5 zones within a quarter-鈥巑ile of centers and corridors near MAX stations, and in 鈥渉igher opportunity housing areas鈥� that 鈥巋ave close proximity to community centers, parks, schools, etc. According to the Residential Infill Project 鈥巗ummary, the new 鈥渁鈥� overlay zone would allow the following additional housing types:

• a house with two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), one attached and one detached
• a duplex
• a duplex with one detached ADU
• a triplex on lots abutting a corner

These housing types would be allowed as long as 鈥巘hey are no larger than a house allowed in the zone. 鈥嶪n addition to the freedom to build the housing types above, the city is sweetening the 鈥巇eal by not requiring additional parking and allowing the FAR for all structures to be combined 鈥巉or triplexes on corner lots. The only catch at this point is that one of the units on a lot must 鈥巌ncorporate 鈥渧isibility鈥� features, such as a no-step entry, wider halls and doors, and a bedroom 鈥巃nd bathroom to be located on the ground floor of one of the units.

The deal is even sweeter if 鈥巃t least one of the additional units on site is considered 鈥渁ffordable鈥� (i.e., up to 80 percent of median household income) or the 鈥巓wner pays a fee in lieu of providing an affordable unit. If eligible, an owner of a lot could take advantage of: 1, a 0.1 FAR bonus; 2, flexibility in 鈥巋ousing types; and 3, the allowance of a triplex and ADU on corner lots.

The proposed rules for the new R2.5 zone also aren鈥檛 so bad. 鈥嶵he zone would require at least two units when new development is proposed on a lot 鈥巘hat is 5,000 square feet or larger, but for land divisions, the new rules would reduce the 鈥巑inimum lot width from 36 feet to 25 feet, allowing more property owners to divide lots. 鈥嶧urthermore, the new zone would allow property lines to be adjusted so that an owner could 鈥巆reate a small flag lot less than 3,000 square feet as long as a house is retained on the lot. The 鈥巒ew house that could be located on the flag lot would not come without its restrictions, however. 鈥嶵he house, no larger than 1,000 feet, would require certain design elements, including a height 鈥巐imitation of 20 feet.

So, as I mentioned earlier, the Residential Infill Project isn鈥檛 all bad. Testimony on the proposed draft 鈥巆oncluded in May. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will incorporate that testimony 鈥巌nto a new recommended draft, which will be sent to City Council in fall 2018 for additional 鈥巔ublic testimony, hearings and amendments. Eventually, the City Council will vote whether to approve the project plans. Portlanders get to decide whether the proposals described above are something 鈥巘hey want to fight or support. Unlike previous 鈥渁ffordable housing鈥� options put forth by the 鈥巆ity, the Residential Infill Project may provide at least a couple reasons to support it.鈥�

K.C. Safley is an associate in the Portland office of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt. He focuses on natural resources, real estate and construction. Contact him at 503-796-2955 or [email protected].