Dear Mayor Randall and Members of City Council,
As a resident of Portage, I am writing to formally share my concerns regarding the Planning Commission’s approved RUDO draft ahead of the upcoming public hearing. I request that City Council address critical zoning and environmental inconsistencies within the current text to ensure the ordinance properly protects the entirety of our city:
1. City-Wide Flooding Safeguards: The ordinance fails to exclude areas near mapped 100-year floodplains from high-density development. This is a city-wide risk, as there are multiple distinct floodplains throughout Portage. Overbuilding near these sensitive zones directly causes severe residential flooding. Environmentally sensitive areas, frequently called out in the Master Plan, should guide Residential Estate (RE) designations, where conservation is achieved through clustering, not introducing outside housing types.
2. Master Plan Disparity: The draft collapses traditional R1A and R1B zones into a new Residential Neighborhood (RN) zone, allowing high-density triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses on up to 35% of the land at the developer’s discretion. This relies on a single isolated phrase rather than the Master Plan’s repeated definition of single-family residential as detached homes and low-intensity options. Higher-density multiplexes belong in the designated Residential-Mixed (RM) zones.
3. Proper Conservation Tools: Consistent with the consultant’s presentation, conservation typically relies on structural developer incentives, like density bonuses for height/floor area, expedited permitting, reduced impact fees, stormwater credits, or tax rebates, not granting permission to build dense multiplexes right next to fragile wetlands.
I ask that Council consider these specific questions: Why does the proposed ordinance completely fail to exclude areas near mapped 100-year floodplains from high-density development? Why does this draft allow high-density multiplexes in single-family neighborhoods by right, when the 2045 Master Plan explicitly created and added acreage to a new Residential-Mixed (RM) zone? Why was the Planning Commission unwilling to consider alternatives to defining RE for environmentally sensitive areas and explore other conservation options for the RN zone?
Please consider voting no and refer the RUDO back to the Planning Commission for further investigation to address the aforementioned issues.
Thank you for your leadership and careful consideration of these city-wide protections.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Portage Street Address]