Residential development has exploded across Portland. While robust, the development has not been comprehensive. The result: housing gaps that city officials are determined to fill.

“We have been building apartments and big houses, but not a lot of middle housing,” said Sandra Wood, supervising planner at the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS).

Filling those gaps is not only a big key to housing an estimated 123,000 households expected to move to the city by 2035 but also the primary goal of the . The city is looking to reduce the scale of new infill development, increase the volume and number of types of housing choices, and provide clear and fair rules for “narrow” lot development. The ultimate goal is to promote higher density in structures within the residential overlay zone that covers nearly 90 percent of Portland.

Zoning changes are expected to accomplish the city’s goals. The end result will impact neighborhoods and the building industries for decades to come.

Not everyone is a fan of the project’s direction. The BPS received more than 800 responses during the public comment period that closed Nov. 30. Some neighborhood groups and area designers believe that it has become a way for the city to push density on already crowded neighborhoods.

“I really don’t think it is on the right track,” said Tamara DeRidder, chairwoman of the Rose City Park Neighborhood Association. “It subverts the comprehensive plan. It’s much too expansive. I don’t feel like many people understand what is going on.”

What is going on is an effort to rework the city’s zoning codes to allow more households per square foot of land while reducing the scales of new structures.

“The new infill housing was out of scale with existing neighborhoods,” said Morgan Tracy, a project manager for BPS. “Some of it is based on market preference. But it is also the escalating value of land. When builders get land, they need to add square footage to justify investment.”

That has led to small houses being torn down and turned into much larger homes in many neighborhoods. The city’s hope is that new regulations will result in fewer 5,000-square-foot McMansions and more 2,500-square-foot homes.

George Hale, owner of H. Hudson Homes, said that such changes could force him and others to build elsewhere. Hale, who has built houses in Portland for 20 years, said his customers aren’t interested in small two-bedroom homes.

“Like it or not, people want a big house,” he said. “They want all the amenities that go along with it. People with families are going to move elsewhere. The city will become dual-income, no-kid people, and that is how the city is going to turn out.”

While reducing the scale of structures is relatively straightforward, finding ways to increase density and housing choice has proven to be a tougher challenge for the city. To achieve higher density, planners decided to allow homes built within the overlay zone to add a second accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to the one currently allowed. One could be attached – such as a basement or garage. Another could be a separate structure.

“Our goal was to address the outcome of infill development,” Tracy said. “We want to increase the diversity of housing options.”

Changing demographics requires smaller units to be built, Tracy said. The average household in Portland has shrunk from 2.5 persons per unit to just 2.1 persons in the last decade, making smaller ADU-type units a viable way to address the housing challenges.

Currently, the most common residential zone, R5, allows one unit for every 5,000 square feet on a lot. More than 75 percent of residential areas fall into either the R5 or R7 (meaning one unit for every 7,000 square feet) zones. Under the new proposed rules, many of those would be changed to a R2.5, meaning that a unit can be built for every 2,500 square feet.

While duplexes have been allowed on corner lots since 1991, only 3.5 percent of owners of those lots have taken advantage of that provision. Many residents fear that will change with the new overlay zone, encouraging builders to put more duplexes, triplexes and ADUs on lots that formerly had single-family homes.

“You have a property that can house a triplex with an ADU on a 5,000-square-foot lot,” DeRidder said. “That changes the entire character of the neighborhood. It will be rebuilt into a new fabric.”

Neighborhood groups are also concerned the city’s quest to fit more households onto ever-tighter spaces could spur more demolitions of existing homes to accommodate multifamily complexes.

“Remodeling a house for that kind of density is cost-prohibitive,” DeRidder said. “We could have a lot of demolitions.”

The Residential Infill Project’s heavy focus on the city’s eastern portion led some stakeholders to question why only certain areas are being asked to absorb greater density. Lot size and shape are the determining factors explaining differences between how the east and west are treated, according to the city.

Those explanations have done little to allay fears that east Portland could see a new wave of demolitions and construction.

“The fear of demolition is from the fear that (the Residential Infill Project) lets people build duplexes and triplexes on every corner no matter where it is,” said Peter Meijer, founder of Peter Meijer Architect PC. “The majority of blocks are two lots on corners. That could turn into multifamily development. That is a scary vision for folks.”

Meijer, who specializes in historic preservation and revitalization, said the Residential Infill Project relies too much on a one-size-fits-all approach. Accounting for differences between city regions is crucial to successfully incorporating higher density, he said.

“One size doesn’t fit all,” he said. “I think you can say Sandy Boulevard is the type of street (that) is perfect for multifamily, three- or four-story housing. A single-family house getting built there is bad. It’s about balance. Why are you forcing (more density) all into R5 neighborhoods? Why is it still OK to build a single-story building on the transit corridors?”

The city believes that the current draft does take differences into account, especially between lot differences on the east and west sides.

“The zoning is already for higher density on transit corridors,” Tracy said. “We are still seeing some single-story construction, but that is a function of the real estate market.”

With the public comment period now closed, the BPS will spend the next several months updating and refining the draft proposal. The proposal will go before the Planning and Sustainability Commission for hearings in early 2018. The hope is to have the final completed proposal before the City Council in May or June.

“I am not against more flexibility or the need for more apartments,” DeRidder said. “But the question is: Is that what we need instead of homeownership? This would be more a rental market and not a homeownership market.”

The amount of change revisions bring will likely depend on where a structure is built, according to Wood.

“It really depends where you are,” she said. “If you are where we are proposing an R2.5, you may see more change, but I think you will see a pretty positive change.”

The post Residential density: a burgeoning conflict appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.