Portland Planning Board
389 Congress St.
Portland, ME 04101
2 January 2010
Patrick Venne
157 Wolcott St.
Portland, ME 04102
Re: Proposed B-7 Amendments
Dear Chair Hall and Members of the Planning Board:
I am a Portland resident and land use attorney interested in the proper development of Bayside as a dense, urban mixed-use district as called for in the now decade-old district plan for that neighborhood. To that end, I would like to express a concern with amendments to the B-7 minimum height requirements recently proposed by Planning Staff.
As you are no doubt aware, height district A--one of 4 in the recently adopted Bayside Height Overlay District--has a minimum height requirement of 4 floors. City staff is proposing a reduction in the stated minimum to 3 floors. The same is proposed for height district C, but the suggested move there would be from 3 floors to 2. Although I agree with virtually every other aspect of Staff?s recommended amendments, such as the ?averaging? of heights to allow for more flexibility in this evolving neighborhood, I strongly disagree with the lower overall minimum height requirements for the following reasons, each of which I thank you in advance for thoroughly considering:
In its memo to the Board of 26 October 2010, Staff uses as the basis for its recommendation to lower the required minimum height of 4 and 3 stories for districts A and C, respectively, the fact that such requirements are ?clearly ambitious,? and result in ?a lot of space to occupy, even in a strong economy.? However, in the same paragraph, Staff continues by noting recent development has been able to meet these requirements. As we all know, the global recession from which we are just now barely beginning to emerge impacted the real estate industry to a particularly great extent. If the minimum height requirements and the ?lot of space to occupy? they result in were able to be met by projects completed in the midst of this recession, it hardly seems ?ambitious? to expect projects conceived in a more stable time could do the same. As I see it, 3 and 4 story minimum building height requirements are not ambitious at all. They are, rather, exactly what one would expect to find in a city like Portland, the largest in the State. Anything less appears distinctly un-urban, if not anti-urban.
The need to accommodate growth in Bayside is real, and the desire to cater to the needs of those unable to contemplate taller buildings for their property is therefore understandable. However, if Portland is to fulfill its vision of creating a dense and urban neighborhood in Bayside, it must refrain from engaging in a ?race to the suburban bottom.? The dreaded surplus implied by the ?lots of space to occupy? resulting from taller minimum height requirements is, it would seem, precisely the point of such regulations. It detracts certain non-urban investments, and attracts other, larger, more urban investments (those capable of meeting the larger space and density requirements), thus ensuring an urban form of the sort one might expect to abut our Downtown. Granted, such larger investments won?t (and shouldn?t) happen overnight, but accommodating quicker growth by deregulating urban form requirements will come at the expense of the neighborhood?s character, and will be a costly mistake in the end.
I would also like to highlight that Staff?s apparent reasoning regarding the justification of lowering District C?s minimum height requirement to 2 floors also seems to be flawed. That reasoning is essentially based on the fact that District C and D are closer to the traditional (i.e., residential) Bayside neighborhood, as opposed to being located along Marginal Way. This is hardly reason to further lower the minimum height requirements in that area, for the following reasons:
As it turns out, the ?traditional neighborhood? is home to the City?s two tallest buildings: Franklin Towers and Back Bay Towers. That area has also witnessed large proposals in the past, and is sure to see the same in the future. As a case in point, Back Bay Towers, an existing 15 story residential tower, was originally proposed as a 19 story building, and Waterview at Bayside, a now-defunct condo project at the corner of Forest and Cumberland Avenues, was planned (and approved) at 12 stories. Moreover, a block south of this ?traditional neighborhood? is the high spine of the Congress Street corridor, the most urban, and tallest, area in the state. This is hardly an area where a 3 story minimum height requirement should be considered ?ambitious.?
Moreover, the 1991 ?Downtown Vision,? from which the Bayside Plan?s origins stem in part, contemplated Bayside?s redevelopment as a Downtown ?perimeter growth area.? The implication such phrasing has, to me, is that the neighborhood should be a release valve for development pressure unable to be accommodated Downtown. If not that, it at least suggests a seamless transition from Downtown to Bayside. A series of shorter buildings in District C and D leading into Bayside, especially those rising to only 2 stories, will not enable this. Allowing shorter structures in this transitional area will only serve to further isolate larger commercial development along Marginal Way.
By making the aforementioned point, I am reminded of the debate which took place both within and outside of bureaucratic circles in 2006 when the new Bayside Height Overlay District was adopted. Many thought taller buildings should have been expressly encouraged closer to the existing downtown (i.e., in the district where the new 2 story minimum height requirements are now being proposed) as opposed to along Marginal Way. Regardless of the merits of that argument, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a suburban 2 story urban form requirement in place. Such a requirement is, actually, not much of a requirement at all. It certainly isn?t an ?urban? requirement.
To conclude, I would like to emphasize by reiterating that, while I agree with virtually every aspect of the 26 October 2010 memo from Planning Staff to the Planning Board other than the proposed amendments to the urban form requirements of the B-7 zone, I remain adamantly and vehemently opposed to any downward adjustments in the District?s minimum height requirements. Such a move would be (a) unnecessary from an economic growth accommodation standpoint, (b) irrational from an urban design perspective, and (c) inconsistent with the very plan B-7 zoning purports to implement.
Thank you all for your consideration of both the proposed B-7 amendments and this letter in opposition to the same.
Very Sincerely,
Patrick J. Venne of Portland
