Residential Unified Development Ordinance (RUDO)

At a Glance

Portage’s new Residential Unified Development Ordinance (RUDO) contains a risky “conservation” provision that allows developers to build high-density triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses right inside our single-family neighborhoods. Over-building in these areas threatens our local ecosystems and risks severe neighborhood flooding, especially when safer conservation alternatives and dedicated mixed-residential zones already exist.

Action Required

Please email City Council today to oppose the current RUDO draft.   To ensure our community stance is consistent, please review the core content on Speak Up Portage before sending your email (template below) or presenting at City Council.

First Action
To ensure our feedback is incorporated ahead of council deciding their vote, we must email our concerns directly to city council by Thursday, June 18th.  An email template with email addresses is provided at the bottom of this page.

Second Action
Attend and speak during the 6/23 Public Hearing at City Hall. We may be limited to 3 minutes each, so time yourself. If need be, condense your email statements.

(Note: You can find the council’s contact page or direct email addresses at portagemi.gov/citycouncil).

What Is A RUDO?

The Master Plan’s top priority was to address zoning. The city is accomplishing this through creating a Unified Development Ordinance, with Residential zones as phase one.

Conceptually, a RUDO can be very helpful to a community by ensuring developers have boundaries about what can be built where, limiting “planned developments” that could introduce many different housing types, along with commercial entities, into areas not zoned that way. This is an Ordinance, so “the law”.

In April 2026, Portage Planning Commission approved and recommended that City Council vote on a RUDO that has many valuable aspects. The area of concern is a provision for selected Single-family zones to contain triplexes, quadplexes and townhouse if the developer chooses a “conservation” option.

See the  Draft RUDO Single Family document

How Did This “Conservation” Provision Come To Be?

The Master Plan defines single family as single detached homes, auxiliary dwelling units (ADU– think “mother-in-law” space) and SOME DUPLEXES in SOME AREAS.

City personnel chose to define the “Some Areas of Duplexes” as Single-Family Residential Zones A & B, now named Residential Neighborhood. Single-Family Residential Zones C & D, now named Residential Estate, would exclude duplexes.

See the  Master Plan Single & Mixed Residential definition document

City personnel chose to offer a “conservation” opportunity for RN if the property is at least 5 acres. Developers could build up to 35% of the housing units as duplex, triplex, quadplex and/or townhouses. In return, 15% or 20% of the total area would be allocated to “green space”; a portion of wetlands qualify as green space.   See the RUDO Single Family document linked above. For RE, the conservation option is limited to clustering of single-family homes.

Multiple times, throughout the 119-page Master Plan, Single Family is defined as noted in first paragraph above. See the Master Plan Single & Mixed Residential definition document linked above. The City’s decision to expand from duplexes to multiplexes in Single-Family zone is based on one soft statement in the Master Plan: “Consider permitting duplexes and/or multiplex housing in some designated Single-Family zones.”

Why is RN-Conservation an Issue?

Some Residential Neighborhoods are zoned near 100 Year Flood Hazards.   Multiple times, the Master Plan states Environmental/Flood Hazard and Context-Sensitive areas need careful consideration. Overbuilding in proximity to flood hazard areas negatively affects the ecosystem.

See the  Flood Hazard map

Two examples from one neighborhood in Flood Hazard proximity:

  1. City approves building a condo cluster; construction gets underway; heavy snow accumulates in February 2017. Temperatures warm; rains come. Homes as far away as 30 lots from the construction site experience flooding. One home was destroyed. Another home required 24 hr/day, for 14 consecutive day restoration via a 3rd party pumping and hauling water away. Considerable money was spent to retrofit that house with pump-and-drain system.
  2. City approves another project in the same neighborhood. Pumps that function infrequently work feverously when raining; one basement had storm water accumulation (had not happened since the condo project). Storm water floods the street, even with light rain.  One home has been so adversely affected that they require major renovations or even a total rebuild.

Bottom Line: Multiple times, the Master Plan states Environmental/Flood Hazard and Context-Sensitive areas need careful consideration. PLEASE heed these warnings. Ecosystems need to be respected and cared for.

Are There Other Conservation Options?

The city chose to hire a Kansas City based, taxpayer funded consultant to assist with the UDO process. At the onset, that consultant presented several conservation options which do NOT entail intermixing housing types.   The Conservation Incentives document aligns with the consultant’s initial statements. RE single family areas have a recommended conservation option of clustering single-family homes, not introducing other housing types.

See the  Conservation Incentives document

Where Would Tri/Quadplexes & Townhouse Be Built?

The Master Plan created a new zone called Mixed Residential consisting of multiple housing types: townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily buildings (such as tri/quadplexes and townhouses). This is a different zone than Single-Family.

See the  Master Plan Future Land Map

as well as the  Master Plan Single & Mixed Residential definition

How to Email City Council in 2 Minutes

1. Copy the Recipients & Subject: Copy the block of council emails below into your “To” line and use the subject line: Formal Resident Comments: Residential Unified Development Ordinance (RUDO) Draft

2. Add Your Info & Send: Paste the closing text at the bottom, sign your name, and include your Portage street address so council members know you are a tax-paying city resident.

Email Recipients

patricia.randall@portagemi.gov; councilmemberjp@portagemi.gov; chris.burns@portagemi.gov; vic.ledbetter@portagemi.gov; nicole.miller@portagemi.gov; jihan.young@portagemi.gov; olmstedk@portagemi.gov

Subject Line: Formal Resident Comments: Residential Unified Development Ordinance (RUDO) Draft

Email Body Options

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]

 

Speak Up Portage