Caddress Ccomment Cemail Cname Comme Nt Id Czip
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LIAISON COMME _DISTRIC NEIGHB CADDRESS CCOMMENT CEMAIL CNAME NT_ID CZIP T ORHOOD TAGS Housing I support additional density capacity in Portland neighborhoods, especially those neighborhoods near public transit Arbor types,Mapping 7155 n Fenwick ave options like Max. [email protected] Jacob Edwards 27306 97217 North Lodge the "a" overlay Allow more liberal development of duplexes they should not be limited to just corners. Up zone to allow higher density developments. [email protected] Benjamin Kerensa 27310 97213 Southeast Mt. Tabor Housing types I support all efforts to increase the amount of housing in Portland! Increased density is so much more efficient. I 2611 NE Knott know this is a contentious topic and I appreciate the city's efforts - thank you! [email protected] Liz Rickles 27312 97212 Housing types I have lived in the Cully neighborhood for the last 45 years. It is a neighborhood of larger lots and older and smaller houses. A lot as changed over the years. As urban renewal has driven minorities out of the closer in neighborhoods through rezoning and building of "new" housing, Cully has been a refuge. Our neighborhood is now one of the last affordable places to live for these and many other people. I have seen a few lots that have been bought up in anticipation of the RIP coming into effect. These are family lots with and older house that are bought for $300,000 that will then have 9 houses built on them with each one selling for over $400,000. This displaces many people of all Housing races who are financially not as well off as the new occupants. types,Mapping Besides displacing poor people there is the urban gardens and green spaces that will be replaced by apartment the "a" like housing. Cully is known for it urban food gardens and green spaces. We would hate to see this all disappear overlay,Displac 5905 NE Failing St under the weight of three story Cottage Clusters (Apartment buildings) [email protected] Cathy Young 27313 97213 ement Overall, I support the modest density increase of the RIP (more density would be better, triplexes everywhere would allow way more housing to be built because the finances of replacing one home with a duplex just don't work out in most cases but a triplex or fourplex often would work out financially). But my geographically specific comment - it isn't about this particular property, but rather about this whole chunk of upzoning historical narrow lots, and the associated lack of upcoming of historical narrow lots southwest of here in Eastmoreland and Woodstock. The areas in Eastmoreland and Woodstock seem much more appropriate for upzoning. They have a much higher percentage of sidewalks and paved streets. They have higher income and fewer renters. The "commercial strip" on SE 52nd is not a good anchor for density in this area - there's pretty much a laundry and a convenience store. Line 75 on SE 45th and the parks and open space (e.g. Tideman Johson Natural Area!) in Eastmoreland seem like much more appropriate reasons to upzone those areas rather than these areas. Here are representative Google Street Views. This spot in Eastmoreland would not be upzoned under BPS's current proposal: https://www.google.com/.../data=!3m6!1e1!3m4... But this spot in Brentwood-Darlington would be upzoned under BPS's current proposal: https://www.google.com/.../data=!3m6!1e1!3m4... Why upzone the poorer, more-minority, sidewalkless area but not the richer, less-minority, sidewalked area? I would Housing suggest the reverse. Brentwoo types,Narrow d- lots,Mapping 10242 SE Ramona St Thanks and please do let me know what the outcome of this is! [email protected] Alex Reedin 27314 97206 Southeast Darlington R2.5 rezones While I understand the need to increase destiny, it doesn't make sense to me that this block (which includes my house) will increase in density as it's really actually farther from "amenities" than property along Albina and Rosa Parks and Lombard and Vancouver that is not being increased in density. I don't want my house/lot to increase in value; I don't want my property taxes to go so high I can't afford to live in a house I've saved my whole life to buy. I don't want my garden--which is the whole reason I purchased this house--to be shaded out by blocky overpriced Mapping R2.5 700 N Stafford St condos or apartments built on neighboring lots. [email protected] Claire Rivers 27315 97217 North Piedmont rezones As a homeowner in the area affected by this proposed draft of the residential infill project, I am in favor of the Housing changes it entails. It is my hope that more available units in the neighborhood might ease the housing crunch we types,Affordabil 7442 SE 70th Ave have been experiencing. [email protected] Mary Pierce 27317 97206 ity We fully support the infill project. We have a very small house, 780 sq ft, on a large corner lot, 10,000 sq ft. We thought an ADU on our lot would be a good idea. PBOT informed us that as our proposed project would exceed a 35% increase in built value, we'd need to install approx. 200 LFt of curb, gutter and sidewalk making the project wildly expensive. Multnoma 3501 SW Caldew St Policy and vision are not in alignment. [email protected] Dennis Kitch 27319 97219 West h Housing types I wish to offer full support of any zoning changes that would allow for higher density building of additional units and multi units. Having lived in Europe for years, I have lived first hand in cities similar in size to Portland that much MUCH higher density and less huge houses taking up tons of room. I lived in Hamburg, GR for a while and marveled at the amount of apartments, ADUs and multi units in the city and how it created an abundance of housing for people of all income levels. It also created more community and connection and less separation. Also, because of this, the city designed more efficient public transport systems and asked residents to be less reliant on cars. We have a huge problem in Portland. Not enough housing in a cosmopolitan center that is hugely popular to live in. We need zoning laws that allow for higher density building in residential areas. I'd like to specifically add testimony to and support of changing the law to allow duplexes to build ADUs on the same lot. I see a lot of duplex lots with large, unused open spaces which could be utilized. My family owns a 9000sf lot with a duplex on it and they want to build a third unit to rent out. And they can not. It's wasted space in my opinion. And would allow someone a new place to live. I fully support this changing as soon as possible. Scale,Housing types,Affordabil 7405 NE Prescott Thanks! [email protected] Robin Jackson 27320 97218 ity I strongly oppose the new "a" overlay. A zoning change that so broadly imposes a THREE HUNDRED PERCENT increase in zoned household density, is simply irresponsible. The consequences of such a drastic action can not possibly be adequately anticipated or managed. Additionally, the infill project proposed is both too broad, and unfair. It is unfair in that is not evenly applied throughout the city, heavily burdening neighborhoods like mine. It is also too broad. Zoning needs to control use. Opening up for development, everything so many blocks from any commercial area or thoroughfare, is unnecessarily destructive. Zoning used intelligently and strategically is really important. Housing Please do not throw out wholesale, the zoning protections we rely on. We badly need a "MIddle Way" here, and this types,Mapping 4308 SE AshST proposal is not it. [email protected] Therese Dion 27321 97215 the "a" overlay I strongly oppose the zone change to my neighborhood to allow the new a overlay. Ladd's addition is an historic neighborhood, renowned for its beauty/ People come from all over the city to walk and cycle and appreciate the architecture, the trees., and the rose gardens. the proposed zoning changes would seriously compromise the Mapping the "a" 1846 se ladd av character and beauty of the area [email protected] freda kerman 27322 97214 overlay I have reviewed in detail the zoning changes proposed by Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission with regards to our property. We have lived at this location for 30 years and originally purchased the property because of the character of the neighborhood. While I understand Portland's need for increased density, I feel that this proposed zoning change will effectively erode the character and livability of the neighborhood. These old suburbs are not the place to increase density in the manner proposed and will only tend to make long term residents sell and move due to increased problems that we already face from the City approved increased density on Hawthorne and Division. I am sure that this is not your 1634 SE 54th Ave intent and I would implore the Planning and Sustainability Commission to not approve this zoning change. [email protected] Michael Beaman 27324 97215 Southeast Mt. Tabor Housing types I applaud the city's efforts to preserve neighborhood character while at the same allowing a variety of new infill housing options. This is a difficult balance to strike, and yet it is exactly what these proposed amendments have achieved through a long and thoughtful process.