UDO

Questioned how developers' influence compared to residents' in drafting the ordinance, and urged a Committee of the Whole.

Lifelong resident said Portage isn't solely responsible for the county's housing crisis and wants existing ordinances enforced first; also raised police staffing concerns.

A code consultant said builders want flexibility, NIMBY isn't a reason to block growth, and Portage must modernize to thrive.

Supported the ordinance as a way to create neighborhood environments for young people starting out and seniors aging in place.

Argued the ordinance effectively rezones existing neighborhoods under residents' feet and asked that it apply only to future developments; questioned consultant pedigree.

Thanked staff but asked the council educate the other 99% of residents in layman's terms before voting.

Asked why the update doesn't exclude 100-year floodplains from dense development and cited the withdrawn Austin Landings proposal; requested a Committee of the Whole.

Said the draft hasn't changed despite citizen feedback; argued zoning should be area-specific, not blanket by-right multiplexes; requested a Committee of the Whole.

An architect and technical committee member said the code's clarity and flexibility are what developers need; urged support.

A young resident urged the council to protect Portage's natural areas while addressing housing needs.

Appreciated the work but asked why environmentally sensitive areas aren't designated for lower density; requested a Committee of the Whole.

Asked why multiplexes are pushed into established single-family areas when the RM zone already handles density; requested a Committee of the Whole.

Urged explicitly restricting development in wetlands and floodplains rather than relying on the state; supported a Committee of the Whole.

Questioned reliance on a single master plan phrase to allow multiplexes by right in single-family zones; requested a Committee of the Whole.

A 77-year-old resident said the ordinance doesn't go far enough — she wants a smaller home that still feels like a neighborhood.

Supported smart growth but not the RN conservation option allowing overbuilding near floodplains; questioned city liability for stormwater damage.

Presented data rebutting fears about property values and traffic, saying the ordinance targets Portage's missing 3% 'missing middle' housing.

Said RN should be limited to single-family and duplexes, changes shouldn't affect existing neighborhoods, and education has been lacking.

Cited the Austin Landings plan as exactly what the ordinance would enable — destroying forest in a populated area; no neighbors support it, he said.

Argued the ordinance must apply citywide without exceptions, aligns with the Master Plan, and that mixed housing types already exist successfully at The Moors and The Harbors.

Former planning commissioner said outdated 1960s zoning was designed to keep certain people out and urged the council to represent everyone, not just the loudest voices.

Speaking for Koenig Real Estate and as a young graduate, thanked the city for liberalizing zoning and shared rent-burden statistics.

Speaking for ISAAC, supported modernizing the 1960s zoning code and said Portage must do its part in the county's housing crisis.

Described needing different housing types at different life stages and tied the ordinance to correcting redlining's legacy.

Brought a three-part solution: define RN single-family as detached homes, limit duplexes using master plan environmental criteria, and restrict tri/quadplexes and townhomes to RM zones only.

Opposed the five-foot side setbacks, citing fire safety, the 9046 East Shore house fire, and the tight Oakland Commons/Creekside Commons homes as bad examples.

Worried the ordinance could enable dense development at Austin Landings, raising traffic on East Shore Drive and conflicting with the Portage Road road diet.

Pressed for the answers promised from last month's questions, including the current single-family vs. multifamily housing split near the new zones; also read a letter from Leonard Bennett demanding Austin Landing be shown as single-family on the zoning map.

Asked whether the commission can amend staff's recommendation to map residential estates (single-family) around Austin Lake, and urged them to do so.

Asked the commission to protect the land and water covered by the plan and to keep documentation transparent, invoking Portage's 'A Natural Place to Move' identity.

Read a statement on behalf of Richard Nellums supporting retaining single-family expectations in southern Portage and asking how much of Austin Landings could be built by right.

Reported East Shore Drive flooding near the new Austin Lake Trail, increased traffic since the Vicksburg road diet, and urged keeping the area single-family.

Read Jim Bodine's statement questioning school and sewer capacity for new residents, and criticizing narrow roads and the Portage Road road diet.

Said her prior questions went unanswered; questioned narrow 35-mph roads and asked where all the people needing these new dwellings would come from.

Endorsed removing the conservation option from RN zoning and restricting multiplexes to RM only, and correcting the master plan's 'and or multiplexes' clause.

The lone supportive voice in person: urged moving forward to provide affordable housing for teachers, police, fire and workers, and praised the plan's handling of short-term rentals and Portage Road safety.

Listed five objections: confusing terminology, adoption before community understanding, reduced lakefront setbacks, using the ordinance to implement the Lake Center sub-area plan, and weakened neighborhood stability.

Asked whether commissioners had seen the flooded Zilman Road swampland slated for development, and questioned how lakefront right-of-way access for new residents would be controlled.

Said the ordinance is too large and overbearing, criticized the road diet on Portage Road, tree loss on the Austin Lake trail corridor, and urged the commission not to pass it that night.

Echoed earlier speakers: single-family zones should not allow multiplexes.

Supported the UDO concept in principle but argued the RN conservation option contradicts the master plan's definition of single-family and its environmental goals; asked the Austin Landing area be zoned RE.

Asked whether there are neighborhood streets without sidewalks; staff confirmed many exist but new streets will require them.

Longtime participant in the process said her questions about impacts on million-dollar homes, property values, and the master plan were never answered, and she has 'major heartburn' about the quantity of townhouses and infrastructure effects similar to the Austin Landing controversy.

Said constituents are calling confused and nervous about the 125-page document and urged the city to communicate the proposal broadly before a packed-house hearing, and worried it feels like usurping the new master plan.

Concerned that land north of Sugarloaf Lake along Portage Creek — a fragile wildlife corridor identified in the parks master plan — is proposed as Residential Estate and could be developed, and asked whether other cities have track records with these code recommendations.

An East Shore Drive resident asked for a comparable study of the impact on high-value homes near proposed denser zoning, questioning the 35% mixed-housing allocation in RN conservation developments and citing traffic and infrastructure concerns.

Asked whether Portage requires rental property owners to live nearby or hire a property manager; staff said no such requirement exists but would raise it with the council.