Comprehensive Plan Implementation: Phase 1

My job in the architectural profession requires us to do neighborhood notifications and meeting to the community our development will be located in . During these meetings we are hearing how zoning changes such as the ones Milwaukie are proposing has affected their community. After going through a dozen of these meeting I feel that there are key take aways that should be seriously considered prior to changing the requirements :
1. The number one complaint we hear is parking issues and how mid-high density development is creating huge parking issues. To say that 1 parking spot per unit is required but also that on-street parking is allowed presents increased parking issues. Again due to my profession, I know that there are ways to not allow any parking due to the type of housing and low income funding that these projects have and most developers go after these types of incentives. If Milwaukie is going to increase the population density everywhere then they should verify that each area is supported by and increased amount of public transportation and frequency to make the need for vehicle transportation less and hope that some people will not have a car. Currently this is not happening in the communities that we have been hearing from.
2. Eliminating all Low Density Zoning in Milwaukie is a big mistake and short sighted. Milwaukie has a big percentage of the community that moved here in order to experience the quiet, natural features and natural habitats that our area has to offer. Currently the Milwaukie Comprehensive Natural Resource Administration Map shows only few habitat conservation areas and vegetated corridors and they are mainly located at the far edges of Milwaukie. The current parks provided are small compared to what the proposed development will be allowing. This is another complaint we hear at our neighborhood reach meetings. The proposed increase density will displace and disrupt the micro habitats that are here, increase the the noise level, and decrease the old growth tree density. There should be an option for keeping some of the low density housing or at the very least increasing the sizing and amount of natural parks (not ones with manicured grass ) at the center of this mid density zoning. The tree density requirement will not replace the impact the increase built density will have on our area. Having some relief from the built density is needed.

Changing the zoning codes only benefits the builders and increases fees for residents. In no way is this benefiting the residents of Milwaukie! Allowing for density will only bring higher traffic, noise, pollution and is not environmentally friendly at all. This also does not meet the City of Milwaukie Comprehensive plan 'community vision'.
As we have seen in Portland and in other suburbs, over-building has led to congestion, pollution and lack of green spaces as well as the hideous buildings that are being crammed into tiny lot spaces with no yard and ruining the beauty of the neighborhoods. This is precisely the reason we left Portland and came to Milwaukie. You are basically turning Milwaukie into Portland.
You also want to increase tree density but yet you are reducing lot sizes and setbacks!! The math doesn't work.
We need to keep codes and zoning in check so the builders don't have the run of the town. We'll be sorry if we do!

Re proposed Parking code amendments: In the latest edition of the Milwaukie "Pilot," Councilor Lisa Batey gives all the reasons NOT to halve the already meager requirement of one off-street space per unit. She writes "Not all streets in Milwaukie are of equal width or have curbs and gutters, and parking cars on unpaved areas can contribute to pollution of our groundwater. The proliferation of driveways and mailboxes from increased development will also make street parking tighter." 'Nuff said? To this I will add that reducing parking spaces, as an attempt to 'encourage' people to use public transport, seems unfair, given that our local mass transit is either inconvenient, inadequate, or non-existent. I am also dismayed to see that the new complex going up at 37th and Monroe is clearly not going to offer much "affordable housing," what with pool, spa, conference/yoga rooms etc. as reported in the latest Pamplin news.

I wish to challenge the need for the Policy Mandate 2: Increase the Tree Canopy and Preserve Existing Trees.

As I look around the city of Milwaukie, I see an abundance of trees. I would guess the current canopy is around 20%. How did those trees get there? Was it because of some government edict? No, it was because people voluntarily planted them or let volunteer trees grow. Is there a big push by Milwaukians to cut them down so that the planning commission feels the need to preserve them? No, people like trees and will continue to plant them. This proposed ordinance looks to me like a solution to a nonexistent problem.

In the October 5, 2021 letter from Vera Kolias to the planning commission it is stated: trees “are a major contributor to the quality of life in Milwaukie”, and they are “to be nurtured and protected”. How is it that a planning commission can somehow know how to improve my, or anyone else’s, quality of life? Last year I had a large tree in my front yard cut down, and guess what? Removing that tree increased the quality of life for me and my next-door neighbor. I no longer have to pay to have it trimmed. I no longer have to rake leaves for weeks and haul them away. I no longer have to worry about the tree’s roots damaging my sprinkler system and plugging my roof drain piping (this happened a few years ago, causing water to back up in my yard and threatening my house’s foundation). I don’t have to worry about limbs breaking off in wind or ice storms and damaging my or my neighbor’s house. My neighbor doesn’t have to rake the leaves that fall or blow into her yard from my tree and her garden produces more now that it isn’t being shaded by that tree. It is also nice to now be able to see some sky from my living room window.

The new ordinance would not have allowed me to cut down that tree, depriving me of improving my quality of life. Everyone’s situation is different. The planning commission can’t possibly know what is best for everyone or write an ordinance that would account for every possible situation. This country was founded on individual rights and freedoms and it has served us well for over 200 years. To switch to a mindset that we should subvert our individual rights and freedoms for what someone in the bureaucracy considers a common good would be a big mistake. We all know that socialism and communism don’t work.

I also want to challenge the goal of increasing the tree canopy to 40%. Where did the 40% come from? It looks to be both arbitrary an unrealistic. To force new construction to have a 40% tree canopy doesn’t make sense. My lawn covers about 40% of my lot. If I also had a 40% tree canopy, then none of my lawn would ever get any sunshine and it would feel like I live in a forest. I don’t want to live in a forest. I also noticed that the Hillside development that is in the process of being approved has only a 29% tree canopy, and yet it looks like plenty to me.

Is the 40% canopy goal somehow related to preventing global warming? If so, does the planning commission really think that adding approximately one square mile of tree canopy over the next 20 years is going to have an effect on global warming? In contrast, Oregon now loses 1,300 to 1,500 square miles of forest to fires every year, which, over the next 20 years would add up to at least 26,000 square miles. If we really wanted to reduce global warming, we would go back to managing forests like we did 20 to 40 years ago when we only lost about 100 square miles per year to forest fires.

Most importantly, the proposed tree ordinance goes directly contrary to the goal of providing more affordable housing in Milwaukie. The ordinance adds another layer of red tape, requiring builders to hire a certified arborist to write a tree preservation plan, build fencing to protect the trees during construction, plant more trees, and pay increased fees. All of this adds to the cost and ultimately the price of housing. The planning commission needs to set priorities. Which is more important, reducing global warming by an infinitesimal, unmeasurably small amount, or providing affordable housing? I would say that providing affordable housing is far more important.

Finally, any time government increases regulation it adversely affects small business more than large business. So, unless the planning commission likes the idea of driving out small contractors from our area in favor of big builders, then they should scrap this ordinance.

I strongly support the changes in the code to allow middle and cottage cluster housing in the new R-MD zone. As an affordable housing developer, we must check the code against actual proposed projects to understand how to make workforce housing in Milwaukie pencil, otherwise these efforts will stall and not result in the projects Milwaukie aspires to encourage.

These are the areas in which I think still need to be incorporated to help to achieve the goal of providing additional affordable housing in Milwaukie.

Parking
I strongly support the proposal to reduce required parking numbers through several methods, including tree preservation, via a Type II variance. The summary of “key amendments,” however, suggests a more flexible arrangement of parking for middle and cottage cluster developments than is specified in the code language and we would support the more flexible language in the summary, including allowing parking in some of the required setbacks.

Detailed Design
While we understand that the intent of the Detailed Design standards is to have housing that is appropriate for the neighborhood, we would note that the 15 listed features do not constitute a known style and adhering to them would not necessarily produce housing compatible with the neighborhood. The inclusion of porches and several other non-stylistic features is important, but, for example, bay windows, changes in roof height and other setbacks add costs to units that are meant to be affordable. Additionally, the choice of wood shingles for roofs or walls is problematic, as these are a fire hazard. More consideration could be given for alternative materials. Please reconsider the list of required features so that more developments could forgo the variance application.

[COMMENT FROM PROJECT TEAM] Re: Modular Homes
Modular homes are already allowed in all residential zones in Milwaukie and these draft proposed changes do not change that. A person would be able to continue to use a modular home as housing, including as middle housing, with the proposed code changes.

Will the new code allow Modular Homes to be placed on a property or will all new additions have to be new construction?

[COMMENT FROM THE PROJECT TEAM]
Thank you very much for your comments. We understand that some of the proposed code concepts are a big change from the code that exists in residential areas today. However, one of the policy mandates for this project is to respond to the adopted Comprehensive Plan (https://www.milwaukieoregon.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/75331/adopted_comprehensive_plan_document_aug_2020.pdf), which calls for an increase in the supply of middle and attainable housing and housing choice for all. The City is also required to comply with Oregon House Bill 2001 (HB 2001), which requires that middle housing (duplex, triplex, quadplex, townhouses, and cottage clusters) be allowed in all zones that also allow single-unit homes. Duplexes must be permitted on all residential lots; other middle housing types can be built based on lot size. While this represents change from what exists today, we should also recognize that this kind of change will be gradual – it won’t all happen at once. New development will have the same standards such as maximum building height and minimum setbacks, just like single-unit homes do now.

There are a number of ways for you to stay involved in this effort: we encourage you to check out the videos of the previous Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee meetings, so you can follow the discussion our committee members have been having about this project (https://www.milwaukieoregon.gov/planning/comprehensive-plan-advisory-committee-cpic); City staff will be meeting with all of the Neighborhood District Associations (NDA) in March, so please attend your NDA meeting; and please participate in the upcoming virtual public engagement event that will begin on March 22nd on the Engage Milwaukie platform. We want to hear from you, so please stay involved!

While I recognize the need for more affordable housing I don't agree with the the policy to eliminate zoning so anything can be placed anywhere. People move to an area for a certain lifestyle and quality of life and pulling that rug out from under them gives little recourse to maintain and enjoy what many have and do work hard to experience. Placing more dense housing means more noise pollution, more light pollution, more cars, more traffic, and less walkable streets. I think these types of structures should be integrated into already dense areas like downtown where you do mixed use business and residents. Also existing parking lots could be converted into these types of structures with less impact on neighborhoods. We have a home that was purchased and renovated by the church next door. The church which when busy has visitors park all over the neighborhood. The home was renovated and went from single occupancy to multi-family and has about 10 cars parked in front of it at any time and a lot of activity coming and going. This kind of development makes the neighborhood less enjoyable and decreases the standard of living for everyone else.

Wow I am so impressed with this online open house! Thank you for the educational and interactive experience! Very accessible information. Proud of our City!

I am a new resident in Milwaukie living in the Axletree apartments at Main and Washington. Every Monday gardeners at the post office next door use gas blowers to move leaves from one area to another. This is the most noise and air polluting exercise I can imagine for yard maintenance. It is also very unsafe for the workers especially as they don't wear masks. People who must enter the p.o. are also assaulted by these machines. I now have my weekly headache, not to mention allergy flareup. Why is such an unhealthy and dangerous practice allowed in a self-proclaimed progressive city? I want it stopped. I must now nurse my throbbing head.
My phone: 760-401-4401
I hope you will consider the wisdom of my suggestion that you stop the machines.
Cheryl West