91视频

A plan to encourage more dense housing projects in certain zones across Portland is raising the ire of Historic Landmarks Commission members, who fear it will encourage demolitions and sideline their ability to regulate building height and size in historic districts.

Commission Chairwoman Kristen Minor is at work on a letter to the City Council ahead of the council’s Wednesday meeting, when the group is scheduled to take up the zoning policies 鈥� known as Better Housing by Design 鈥� for two hours of discussion. A vote could be held in November.

During a Historic Landmarks Commission meeting on Monday, Minor said the Planning and Sustainability Commission‘s agenda is creating a conflict.

鈥淪ome parties would not like this commission to have a say over a project’s bulk or height,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat’s one of the key measures of compatibility.鈥�

Minor told her fellow commissioners that she was inclined to make their objections known.

鈥淚 for one believe we should go in guns blazing to City Council, but I appreciate your discussion on this,鈥� she said.

The Historic Landmarks Commission members’ concerns underscore the tension between their role 鈥� 鈥渕aintaining and enhancing Portland’s historic and architectural heritage,鈥� according to the city’s website 鈥� and Portland’s greater policy push to build more housing units throughout the city. That is something Mayor Ted Wheeler and others have sought as a key solution to Portland’s housing crisis.

Better Housing by Design would give larger height bonuses for affordable housing in multi-dwelling zones. It would also provide greater heights for buildings with 50 percent or more units made affordable at 60 percent of area median income 鈥� a provision intended as an incentive for nonprofit affordable housing developers.

鈥淭his is of course related to the housing crisis, and wanting to make better use of housing opportunities when they arise,鈥� said Bill Cunningham, a Bureau of Planning and Sustainability project manager.

The proposal would also allow the transfer of floor area ratio to historic districts, enabling greater building heights in exchange for seismic upgrades. Earlier attempts by city officials to encourage seismic retrofits have run into roadblocks.

The proposal also would establish 鈥渂ase鈥� floor area ratios. In a draft letter to the City Council, the Historic Landmarks Commission protested that provision.

鈥淕iving developers of projects extra bulk or height in historic districts creates less predictability and more opportunity for contentious hearings for projects in these districts,鈥� the letter dated Sept. 9 states. 鈥淚ncreasing a new development’s height or bulk (beyond code 鈥榤aximums,’ which are themselves not always approvable in every situation) will not always meet Historic Review approval criteria. The (commission) strongly opposes opportunities to 鈥榚arn’ more bulk in these areas, even for deeply needed affordable housing.鈥�

The letter also states that a provision to allow measurement from a low point below the sidewalk would encourage tuck-under garages.

Better Housing by Design would apply to multi-dwelling residential zones (R1, R2, R3 and RH in zoning jargon) outside the Central City. In practice, much of this property lies in East Portland. The proposal would also affect the Alphabet and King’s Hill historic districts in Northwest Portland.

Cunningham said there’s nothing in Better Housing by Design that would remove the Historic Landmarks Commission’s authority to govern building height and bulk in historic districts. Among the commission’s primary tasks is reviewing development proposals on properties within historic districts.

鈥淭hat’s not changing at all through this proposal,鈥� Cunningham said. 鈥淭hey would continue to have the discretion to change (designs) based on context.鈥�

Nevertheless, Historic Landmarks Commission members fear the proposal would sideline their review authority. Minor pointed to another city planning project, Design Overlay Zone Amendments (DOZA), that would limit the Design Commission’s discretion in certain neighborhoods.

鈥淚t’s kind of been this implicit threat that the Landmarks Commission would also lose purview,鈥� Minor said. 鈥淚t would be a vastly different thing for us to lose that. They are in the position of wanting more height and density just about anywhere,鈥� she said, referring to the Design Commission. 鈥淲hereas for us, there are definitely situations in historic districts where the maximums allowed under the code would result in noncompatible projects.鈥�

Minor said the Historic Landmarks Commission is on board with the city’s overall goals to increase housing density. But, she added, the Better Housing by Design proposal should do more to discourage demolitions.

鈥淭he code has definitely swung in the direction to build our way out of the housing crisis,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat’s certainly part of the picture 鈥� but we also have to sustain what we have.鈥�