Current Issue: Recode Phase 2 First Wave Comments from MHNO to City of Portland Planning Department
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Barbara Vestal <b.vestal@munjoyhill.org>
Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 3:26 PM
Subject: Comments from Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Organization on ReCode First Wave
To: <recode@portlandmaine.gov>, cdg@portlandmaine.gov <cdg@portlandmaine.gov>, hcd@portlandmaine.gov <hcd@portlandmaine.gov>, kkraft@portlandmaine.gov <kkraft@portlandmaine.gov>
Please see the following comments on the proposed changes, ReCode First Wave. They are being submitted on behalf of the Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Organization.
1. THE PIECEMEAL APPROACH OF RECODE II IS A BARRIER TO MEANINGFUL CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
It is difficult for citizens to meaningfully participate in the ReCode II drafting process because the “First Wave” is only definitions, zones, uses and dimensional standards. We are “in the weeds” without any context. There are no maps, no development review standards, and the rest of the land use code is missing. Without a draft of the entire land use code document, it is difficult to tell what is intended by staff and the consultant for later sections. We will need the ability to go back and comment on the “First Wave” once later sections are released. It needs to be an iterative process.
2. THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE NEW RN-5 ZONE OMITS IMPORTANT CONCEPTS
In the purpose statement for the R-6/ New RN-5 zone, the proposed draft has deleted concepts that appear in the current purpose statement that refer to conserving the existing housing stock, preserving the existing neighborhood character, and making new development consistent with the typical compact lot development found on the peninsula. While perhaps imperfectly expressed in the current code, they identify concepts that are typically valued by residents. It would be better to improve the way they are referenced rather than removing them entirely.
Staff has said that similar concepts now appear in proposed Table 5-B, with the introductory paragraph emphasizing “context sensitivity.” However, while statements about “standards encouraging compatibility and context sensitivity” do appear in the RN-2, RN-3 and RN-4 zones in the context of conversion of existing structures to higher density uses, that phrase does not appear anywhere in the RN-5 zone. Standards requiring compatibility and context sensitivity should be an integral part of the RN-5 purpose statement, and should apply to all new development as well as to the conversion of existing structures. Similarly rewritten design standards, long put on hold, need to be completed and adopted so that they are a meaningful part of the development review process. Design standards are an integral part of assessing compatibility and context sensitivity.
3. HEIGHT REGULATION IS NOT IMPROVED; HEIGHTS SHOULD BE MEASURED FROM PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE
Measurement of heights in Portland has been problematic for at least a decade. Rather than fixing the source of the controversy, the proposed draft further embeds the misguided approach. For both the islands and mainland, dimensional height limits should be applied from pre-development grade as existed as of a certain date, such as January 1, 2000. Instead, the proposed draft imposes absolutely no limits upon a developer importing fill or otherwise proposing to alter the site prior to calculating allocable height. That makes the height limits de facto non-existent and defeats the reason for having height limits in the first place. Similarly, the proposed draft does not adequately define the point of measurement; applied details such as planters should not be treated as if they are a foundation.
4. THERE SHOULD BE A CAP ON HOW MUCH GAIN CAN BE REALIZED FROM AVERAGING GRADE
The code needs to recognize that a high percentage of the sites in Portland that remain to be built upon are on steeply sloped land. In the last several years some buildings have been proposed or built on these steeply sloped sites, which take maximum advantage of grade averaging and produce buildings that are greatly out of scale with their context. These buildings should serve as cautionary examples and the proposed code should be adjusted to establish a maximum amount of height above the lowest grade that can be picked up by averaging grade, such as 4 feet. A cap like that will further context sensitivity from both the uphill and downhill perspectives.
5. PORTLAND’S CODE NEEDS TO INCORPORATE A METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING GRADE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AND IS NOT AS VULNERABLE TO MANIPULATION BY APPLICANTS
The proposed definition of “grade, average” proposes minor improvements over current, but the methodology is incomplete. “Foundation” is not operationalized. Using the perimeter of the building as the element to be measured allows for heights to be “gamed” by proposing a building that is heavily crenelated or repeatedly indented on the highest part of a site, giving extra weight to that part of the perimeter. A more standard methodology for measuring grade is in order.
6. THE PROPOSED RN-5 75’ BUILDING LENGTH DIMENSIONAL STANDARD IS INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE SCALE OF NEW BUILDINGS
The new building length dimensional standard is inadequate to control the scale of new construction. In 2020, the peninsula neighborhoods proposed approaching context sensitivity through regulating lot consolidation in order to retain a development pattern typical of compact lot development. In the alternative, they proposed that lots could be purchased by a common owner but proposed that the maximum dimensional requirements would be established by the maximum that could have been built upon the separate, non-merged lots of record.
While this 75’ maximum building length restriction may attempt to get at a similar problem, 75’ is too big for the Munjoy Hill neighborhood context. 50’ would be more in keeping with a typical building size. Similarly, the definition does not specify that a setback would be required between two or more such buildings. Theoretically, a technical break of one foot would suffice under the proposed definition. That is not sufficient. To be contextually appropriate, a full setback on each side of the midline should be required for each building even if they are on a single large lot under common ownership.
7. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION PAID TO WHAT THE LAND USE CODE CAN DO TO RETAIN EXISTING HOUSING AND/OR MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MORE LIKELY
So far, the sections of the proposed changes to the land use code seem to focus on new construction. More attention needs to be paid to how the land use code can foster and incentivize retention of existing housing because that is where the “missing middle”, “naturally occurring affordable housing” and “workforce housing” is typically found. New construction will be expensive, and frequently in Portland the new “luxury housing” that is built is a second (or more) residence for a non-resident. The creation of luxury housing is unlikely to result in “trickle-down housing” in the Portland market which will be available to middle income residents. Perhaps the rewrite of the section on non-conforming structures will identify some opportunities for the repurposing of formerly non-residential structures into residential uses, or the retention of existing housing with upgrades or additional units which can be part of addressing the shortage of affordable housing.
In addition, more attention needs to be paid to how building heights and other dimensional standards can incentivize workforce housing. The (now repealed) Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Conservation Overly Zone contained some height differentiations that should be studied for possible inclusion in the proposed ReCode changes. Instead of allowing 45 feet as of right (as proposed in ReCode II), in the MHNCOZ at least one workforce unit had to be included to increase allowable height from 35’ to 45’. This was too generous; it should have required a percentage like 25% rather than a single unit to qualify for the height bonus.
The other dimensional requirements should be studied to see what other workforce housing incentives can be incorporated. Perhaps lot area per multi-family unit (725 SF/unit) could be reduced if all units (or a certain high percentage) were workforce housing.
But any adjustments to dimensional standards also need to be coupled with intensive scrutiny of the standards for what qualifies as workforce housing. For example, for proposed workforce condominium units, the ordinance should ban the practice of monthly condominium fees being assessed on a per capita basis. Instead, monthly condominium fees should be regulated so they reflect that the workforce unit is smaller, in a less desirable location, has different appliances or finishes, etc., as applicable. It defeats the intent unless the monthly carrying costs are affordable.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We understand this is an iterative process and look forward to seeing your next draft of these four sections, and your proposed revisions for the rest of the land use code.
Regards,
Barbara Vestal
President
Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Organization
92 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101
Munjoy Hill Historic District Designated by City Council on April 12, 2021
A portion of the proposed Munjoy Hill Historic District is shown in the left side of the photo.
Munjoy Hill Historic District Unanimously Recommended by Historic Preservation Board on November 20, 2019, and Narrowly Recommended by Planning Board on August 11, 2020, Finally Approved by City Council on April 12, 2021
After a three-year path with many fits and starts, the City Council finally approved designation of the Munjoy Hill Historic District on April 12, 2021. The details follow:
Following its standard very detailed process to evaluate the proposed designation of a new historic district, the Historic Preservation Board unanimously recommended designation on November 20, 2019 and forwarded the matter to the Planning Board for its recommendation.
The Planning Board Public Hearing was held on Tuesday, March 10, 2020. 53 people spoke, 44 of them (83%) supporting creation of a historic district. The Planning Board voted to table Board discussion and a vote for one week. BUT then the Covid-19 virus intervened and the March 17th meeting was canceled. The matter was taken up by the Planning Board for action on August 11th. Many written comments were submitted to the Planning Board, again about 80% in favor of a historic district. The majority of the Planning Board voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Munjoy Hill Historic District and designate several landmark buildings, but it was a divided 4-3 vote (Mazer, Chann, Dundon opposed).
City Council action was anticipated at a November 16th public hearing. However, instead of having a public hearing and voting, the Council decided to postpone the matter to the first meeting in February. Since action would not be taken by that sitting Council, a vote was postponed to allow the 3 new City Councilors time to become familiar with the proposal before the Council votes.
The City Council took up the matter on February 1, 2021. After a public hearing at which the testimony was again strongly in favor of the Historic District, the Council ultimately voted not to approve the proposed Munjoy Hill Historic District. Councilors Mavodones, Ali, Fournier, Chong and Zarro voted to reject the designation, while Mayor Snyder, District 1 Councilor Ray, and Councilors Thibodeau and Dion voted to approve the designation. Designation of five individual landmark structures, which are located near but outside the proposed historic district, were approved by Council.
At the next City Council meeting on February 22, 2021, Councilor Zarro (as a person who had previously voted with the majority) explained his reasoning and made a motion to reconsider the February 1st vote. That motion to reconsider carried (Zarro, Ray, Thibodeau, Dion, Snyder), as did a subsequent motion to postpone the matter for a subsequent vote on the merits to April 5, 2021. Councilor Zarro provided staff with a list of additional information that he would like to receive prior to the matter returning on April 5th. Other Councilors were invited to submit their requests as well.
The matter was scheduled for April 5, 2021 but a widespread internet problem caused the Council meeting to be postponed one week. On April 12th the Council unanimously approved a resolution requesting that the City Manager commission a report on the impacts of historic districts in the City of Portland. The Council then voted 5-4 (with Zarro, Ray, Thibodeau, Dion and Snyder in the majority) to approve designation of the Munjoy Hill Historic District as originally recommended by the Historic Preservation Board. The District, as approved, applies to approximately 49% of Munjoy Hill. The portions not included in the Historic District continue to be governed by the Munjoy Hill Conservation Overlay District.
MHNO Supports Historic District
The Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Organization, through its elected Board, has unanimously voted to support the proposed Munjoy Hill Historic District and the designation of several individual properties outside of the District as individually designated landmarks. MHNO President, Wayne Valzania, and many members of the Munjoy Hill community spoke in favor of the positive recommendation from the Historic Preservation Board on November 20, 2019.
2015 AMENDMENTS TRIGGER incompatible NEW DEVELOPMENT
As many residents know, this intense discussion about appropriate development on Munjoy Hill was triggered by Council enactment in 2015 of a package of zoning amendments which were characterized as a way to make more undeveloped lots available for residential “infill” development which would be compatible with the existing neighborhood character. The amendments significantly reduced the minimum lot size, reduced the amount of land area required per unit, reduced the space needed between structures, and included other measures to promote more development. It was anticipated that more small lot infill development would occur on then-existing vacant lots and lots which had been used for non-residential purposes such as parking.
Loss of historic neighborhood character viewed AS THREAT
A consequence of the 2015 amendments, unanticipated by many, was an increase in the pattern of demolition of existing housing in order to build new structures at a much higher density than previously allowed. Virtually every structure was suddenly overshadowed by the threat of a much larger structure that could replace it if it were demolished. The most aggressive use of the new zoning saw developers buying up and proposing to demolish adjacent small houses to create large new lots for the most intensive redevelopment permitted by the revised zoning.
The historic character of the Hill, a remarkably intact example of working-class residential architecture of the 19th and early 20th century, is threatened by this incompatible new development. The plethora of vernacular frame houses on small lots on Hill streets produces an uninterrupted, rich urban fabric. The uniformity of scale, massing and orientation, and the way buildings are sited in relation to each other, results in a valued streetscape which is greater than the sum of its individual parts. The uninterrupted concentration of structures of a similar design and age, most of which have retained their architectural integrity, contributes greatly to the ambience and amenity of the Hill as a place to live today. This fabric is jeopardized by redevelopment projects that replace existing residential structures with large condominium blocks that frequently appear to be out of scale and proportion to the surrounding buildings and seem not to respect the historic built environment of the neighborhood.
DECEMBER 2017 MORATORIUM ON DEMOLITIONS, FOLLOWED BY JUNE 2018 PLAN TO MANAGE CHANGE, INCLUDING HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
Many residents are aware that in December 2017, as a result of the concerns of Munjoy Hill residents about increased demolitions, out-of-scale new construction, and design that did not make a positive contribution to our dense, closely-knit neighborhood, the City Council enacted a 6 month moratorium on demolitions on Munjoy Hill. In June 2018, after work to identify possible mitigation measures, the Council took three actions:
· It enacted a Munjoy Hill Conservation Overlay District (some changes to dimensional standards, a new design review process for some, and a demolition delay process for the entire Hill);
· It urged staff to embark on a lengthy process to evaluate and make recommendations on a potential historic district for part, or all of Munjoy Hill, and finally
· It noted the Planning Board’s intent to revisit R-6 design standards.
The currently proposed Munjoy Hill Historic District is the culmination of the June 2018 direction from the City Council to look at a historic district as part of the solution.
MUNJOY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT AS A TOOL TO MANAGE CHANGE
The MHNO views historic district designation as one tool to preserve the neighborhood character, and to protect the remaining 19th and early 20th century working-class residential architecture which characterizes the neighborhood. As a side benefit, it may help retain the existing stock of affordable, workforce and middle-class housing.
As with all historic districts, the intent is not to freeze the neighborhood, but rather to manage change so that what is built is compatible with the important, historic character-defining features of the existing neighborhood. Within the Historic District, compatible new construction may take place on vacant lots or as replacement for those structures within the district which are designated as “non-contributing” (which may be demolished for redevelopment). Building additions, reconstruction, and rehabilitation are all possible for “landmark” and “contributing” structures. These changes are subject to a review by Portland’s Historic Preservation staff, or for larger projects, by the Historic Preservation Board, for compatibility with the historic character. Outright demolition of a structure which is designated as a “landmark” or a “contributing” structure within a district, will not be allowed except through reclassification or a showing that there is no economic use that can be made of the property.
The review standards for rehabilitation, alterations and new construction on Munjoy Hill are the same as have been applied to Portland’s other historic districts, like large parts of the West End, for 30 years. They apply only to exterior changes which are readily visible from the street or public space. They do not review or control temporary changes, such as paint color. They allow for replacement of existing materials with existing materials (e.g. if a building currently has vinyl siding or vinyl replacement windows, any replacements may be vinyl as well). Ordinary maintenance may be undertaken without review. And they do not require a property owner to undertake any improvements to a property; an owner is not required to upgrade a property just because it is in a designated historic district. But if an owner opts to make exterior changes or improvements which go beyond ordinary maintenance, usually as part of the building permit process, they will be reviewed for compatibility.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR 30 YEARS ON the WEST END, and OTHER PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOODS
Portland has eleven other local historic districts, including much of the West End, India Street, Deering Street, Congress Street, and Stroudwater. Some of these districts, like the West End, have been designated as Historic Districts for 30 years. Munjoy Hill now joins these areas, many of which are similar, to enjoy the protections and guidance offered by the historic preservation process in managing change.
LINKS FOR MORE INFORMATION
For those who would like more information, here are an assortment of links. They include links to City of Portland resources about its own historic preservation program, Portland’s local historic districts, and the recommended local historic district for Munjoy Hill. They also include links to information provided by others about historic preservation, both Munjoy Hill specific and national in scope. The reader is cautioned that not all historic preservation programs are the same, and what might apply in one city or town does not necessarily apply to Portland’s Historic Preservation program. Inclusion of a link here does not mean that the MHNO necessarily agrees with and/or endorses the positions taken in these publications.
MUNJOY HILL-SPECIFIC LINKS:
These are links to more information about a Munjoy Hill Historic District:
City of Portland Resources About Munjoy Hill:
Map of the boundaries the Munjoy Hill Historic District:
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/9f2caeaa-f5aa-4671-9789-feb6b18a1b96
For an explanation of what the Property Classifications colors used on the map mean, see the end of this section, below.
Munjoy Hill Architectural Development and Context Statement:
Munjoy Hill Building Inventory (all Streets, very large file):
http://portlandmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24820/Munjoy-Hill-Building-Inventory
To view buildings by individual streets, one can also go to this link, scroll to the bottom of the page where the names of streets are displayed, and click on a particular street:
https://www.portlandmaine.gov/2451/Munjoy-Hill-Historic-District
Non-City of Portland Resources About Munjoy Hill:
This is a Munjoy Hill specific link to Greater Portland Landmarks, a local nonprofit organization that provides advocacy, research, and education about historic preservation:
http://www.portlandlandmarks.org/munjoy-hill
Greater Portland Landmarks’ slide show on Munjoy Hill from February 2018, prior to the City’s designation of potential district boundaries: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/555c99afe4b027a64d6975df/t/5a972a4453450ad262876e82/1519856206664/Website_February+21st.pdf
CITY-WIDE INFORMATION ABOUT ITS HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Other City-wide information about its program prepared by the City of Portland’s Historic Preservation Office:
Frequently Asked Questions about Portland’s Historic Preservation Program:
http://portlandmaine.gov/2281/17613/Frequently-Asked-Questions
Information about what activities require review in Portland’s Historic Districts:
Different review standards for: alterations to Contributing and Landmark buildings; alterations to Non-contributing structures; and new construction in an historic district:
https://www.portlandmaine.gov/772/Historic-Preservation-Review-Standards
NATIONAL STUDY ABOUT ECONOMICS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
For additional analysis, see the highly-respected 2020 study by economist Donovan Rypkema and others with PlaceEconomics entitled “Twenty-Four Reasons Historic Preservation is Good for Your Community”:
https://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/City-Studies-WP-Online-Doc.pdf
MEANING OF PROPERTY CLASSIFICATIONS SHOWN ON MAP
OF POTENTIAL MUNJOY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT:
Within the potential boundary of the Munjoy Hill Historic District, individual buildings are further classified by relative “preservation value” as shown in the property classifications legend. Within the potential district boundary, the classification determines which standards will be applied to a particular building. The color code is as follows:
Dark blue: already designated Landmarks (St. Lawrence Church Parish Hall, Portland Observatory, Ann Freeman House, Green Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church).
Green: proposed to be designated as individual Landmarks such as the former Shailer School, former Emerson School, former home of John Ford, 101-107 Congress Street. Landmarks structures have a high degree of historical, cultural and/or architectural significance, or are located apart from a contiguous district.
Light blue: Contributing structures, which contribute generally to the qualities that give the Historic District cultural, historic and/or architectural significance, as embodied in the district designation criteria, but without themselves being a Landmark.
Dark blue, green, and light blue: Landmark and Contributing structures which may generally not be demolished. The exceptions are if the owner demonstrates there is no reasonable use of the property or demonstrates that it should be reclassified as “non-contributing” based upon information not available at the time of its original classification. Alterations or additions to Landmark or Contributing structures are subject to review under Portland’s Preservation Ordinance’s Standards for Review of Alterations.
Orange: Non-contributing based on date of construction, meaning that it was built within 50 years of the date of district designation.
Purple: Non-contributing, either because the building does not contribute generally to the qualities that give the Historic District cultural, historic or architectural significance as embodied in the designation criteria or where the building would have been contributing, but has been so altered, or has so deteriorated that the overall integrity has been irretrievably lost.
Orange and purple: Non-contributing structures may be demolished without historic preservation review. Alterations to non-contributing structures are subject to review, but the review standards are more lenient. Any replacement construction following demolition is subject to review under the Standards for Review of New Construction.
Yellow: Undeveloped parcels that are currently vacant. If any new construction is proposed, it is subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance’s, Standard for Review of New Construction.