Planning Minutes – 08/06/09

Attending:

Committee: Chair John Bradley, Bill Welch, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Steve Pinger, Stephen Metzler, and Noel Johnson.

Guests: Mark Desbrow, Adam Tyler (neighbor), Mary Czarneke, Lee Stapleton, MIke Goldstein & Fran Goldstein, Jeannie (last name not known), neighbor, Kim Knox, Sheils Obletz Johnson, Meredith Hendricks, Mark Mikolavich, Greenleaf Architecture.

MOTIONS:
1. Stephen Metzler moves to accept design proposal for Streetcar Maintenance Facility at NW Overton and 16th with changes: a welded wire mesh fence in place of chain, as is used in airports. Seconded by Roger Vrilakas with suggestion to rethink awning along the face of the building–something that works better with trellis.

Bradley — motion is to approve with conditions:
1. Some other type of fencing than chain link
2. Further work on design of plaza to emphasize as major entrance.

VOTING:
Motion passes.
In favor: Bill Welch, Roger Vrilakas, Steve Pinger, Stephen Metzler, and Noel Johnson.
Opposed: Don Genasci

* End of minutes *

Meeting Summary: Mark Desbrow (previously from OPUS) and Noel Johnson (this committee) presented some very preliminarily ideas for the development of an adult coop building at 19th and Johnson. This is the third set of developers to look at this former motion picture storage and processing site. Despite the fact that this property lies outside the Alphabet district the committee continues to feel that the unique façade of the current buildings must be incorporated into any new structures. In the third and last meeting with the streetcar barn architects the committee moved to approve with modifications. The modifications asked for were, increased design emphasis on the building entrance and that the security fence be made out of some other material other than chain-link. - John Bradley, Committee Chairperson

Additional Meeting Notes:

Desbrow, Johnson (Johnson as developer, presenter.) Working on new venture, older adult cooperative housing.

Desbrow – worked on Park 19 apartments, left OPUS. Was commuting, but was also discouraged the way senior housing is managed, consolidated and run by large corporations. He was in financing and acquisitions, and had to run projections–a profit generating model that didn’t have the seniors interests in mind. This may work for an apartment–there are other options, but not for seniors with limited resources & unpredictable expenses.
There’s a model in the Midwest, cooperative housing, and they are cooperatively owned and hire their own site management.

This allows people to make a lifestyle choice early based on future concerns and needs. No limitation on income, can be mixed. HUD. Only option that allows equity retention by owners.

We have a few projects looking at, one with most legs is in NW: we have a group of people that have asked us to build a building for them, not speculative.

Johnson – options aren’t varied, we think this can be as exciting as buying a first house. Can choose amenities, assembled based on interest. 55+ is HUD requirement. This requires great sites: in other models people bring you property for senior housing because the don’t know what else to do with it.

SW corner of 19th and Lovejoy. Lovejoy used to have a vibrant history, mansions, now 19th has parking lots, Legacy, med office building.
Full building on the site, L shaped, would take the building down. Was Fox film site (1930’s) became MGM… Film chemicals were explosive so they build cast concrete walls, site has tiny rooms and small spaces. It’s two buildings as a single structural system.

The site has gone around to various interested buyers, OPUS, TCR. TCR had tried to save the lower building. We’re anticipating removing bad dirt since floor drains channeled chemicals into the soil. We don’t think we can save any of the buildings.

Desbrow – the environmental contaminants are the main reason we have to demolish the building. Not eligible for brownfields. Due to one-way on 19th and Streetcar on Lovejoy, entrance would be on Kearny, underground parking.

Czarneke – details and entrance scales are the best part, if you could save these and duplicate palazzo courtyard style and detail. Other buildings are around by the same architect. Would add an element to NW that is a counter to the Pearl.

Johnson – # of units will be determined by the number of members/purchasers. Desbrow–realistically expect a 5 or 6 story building. The code tops at 65’ if wood structure.

Stapleton – you’re talking about a co-op, Park Place on Vista. If a senior component are you talking age restricted? (Yes, it’s 55+) Is it contemplated to have services like a CCRC? Continuation of care?

Desbrow – in this model you don’t pay for services you don’t need, contract for in-home care provider would be available. Won’t have assisted living. Genasci–did you do testing for chemicals?

Johnson – we did take deep samples in alley, and cored through slab near internal drains.
Desbrow – $40,000 spent on environmental research.

Johnson – must haul off soils, can’t cap. Not much ground water, fortunately, expect only hot spots.

Vrilakas – at my age you develop a respect for the past. Even just a facade here would be salable.

Bradley – agrees, it’s a unique building. I’m sorry to hear the inside is contaminated. Silver, brominated hydrocarbons, breakdown of cellulose.

Johnson- cadmium.

Genasci – the front edge of 19th street is the best part of the building, cut the rest loose and there’s still room for a 5 or 6 story block. Would give a scale and entrance through these buildings that would be unique in modern buildings.

Talking about leaving the front of the building the depth of the primary building. Earthquake standards are met by tying this to the new structure. It’s a generous site, and an opportunity to put together the new with the old without a corny Disneyland thing.

We’ve done four early interest meetings, 75 people have come. We’re doing unit selection and collect deposits in September. Grass roots marketing has been successful, people want to live with friends. 50 units, units are customized. Most of the people have steep staircases in current residences. One of the hardest things for people leaving their house is their garden, so we’re looking at this. Possibly rooftop.

Johnson – so style is different than other buildings nearby, what cues should we take from other surrounding.

Czarneke – would not call it Disneyland to put a new Traditional style building. Would like to see a modern building adjacent, it’s so doable to have the traditional style.

Welch – historic facades and compatible infill were done in old town, setback options. I know these exist.

Website is done, and a good one.

Bradley – continuation of Streetcar Maintenance Facility review. Third meeting with this, some adjustments requirements and Design Review. Window patterning, entrance placement, fence with slats were concerns.

Knox – heard don’t comeback unless there’s some change. So we seriously went through this in light of committee’s comments. General theme: More interest and activity on 16th avenue, and fencing.

Form follows tracks, recaps how we got this design. Expansion first includes Eastside loop, more to come. Can’t say if this will become a permanent dead end.

Hendricks – re use: short term maintenance in this shop.

Knox – looked at regularization of windows which we discussed (shows drawing) and if entrance is added, to reach elevation change we lose office space–this was a quickly done study. Blows out constrained space on that side. Building entry sequence from a presence on the street perspective. (will continue momentarily)

Fencing differs from other areas in that it is inside the property & not on the sidewalk line. It’s required for security. Behind landscaping. This isn’t different from last week but I wanted to emphasize this.

Hendricks – on 16th we pulled back the fencing on the corner and landscaped as much as possible. Pulled fence back on the far side of the building, 5’ setback on Northrup.

Czarneke – Rose Gardens have chain link, painted green, black. This is a plain, metal & concrete building, could use color. Oregon green. This is a public utility, there was a day when these sorts of buildings were iconic public facilities. Charm factor could go up if you utilized paint. If the roof went up to the freeway, pitched, it could be much improved. Terra cotta color like train station, sign that calls it out.

Doesn’t mind the utilitarian aspect of the building on the street, but the randomness I didn’t like. Simpler, older buildings–train stations–could give a clue. The metal concrete look is alien.

Knox – From a customer perspective you do want the system to read as a whole, I take your point.

the bar part of the building starts taking on the proportions of a streetcar, someone here asked about murals. Talked with PSI about public art. I can plant the seed of having this part of the site put into that program.

Genasci – Drawing doesn’t solve the problem of the Bar area. If you flip the offices over, corridor on the backside, each office with a window to the street, make these larger?

Hendricks – they are 5’ x7’ tall. Ceiling height.

Genasci – those are reasonable. If you raised parapet could get more presence on the street. It’s easy to be functional and offers more to the street.

Hendricks – 15’ building at high side, 14’ at low side. Over half the spaces are toilets, janitors rooms, and wouldn’t have windows. Only one office. A pedestrian can look through this office, see streetcars inside, and also corridor activity.

Genasci – could also put the rooms you don’t want to see on one end. If you really want to solve the problem, it’s not that difficult to solve. The issue is getting a presence on the street and not turn the building’s back to the street.

Hendricks – we took the comments about the presence on the street and the entrance relationship to 16th. Similar, but have reshaped trellis, extended as part of the plaza, 15’ tall. Added extra, lower element at sidewalk, added planters, green on the street, and planters along the ADA ramp. Private entrance but reads more as a public entrance.

Mikolavich — One response to this concern is an entrance on the center of the street side, the other is a courtyard entrance, which is what we’ve done.

Hendricks – trellis also wraps around to point you towards the entrance.

Theisen – Trellis makes me think of open screen.

Hendricks – it’s light framed steel with mesh, solid element over entrance door.

Genasci – secondary trellis marks what looks like entrance but it’s not. People will be going there. Can cantilever trellis over the street, so it marks the entrance.

Hendricks – lower trellis is for the pedestrian on the sidewalk.

Genasci – if you ran it down the whole building?

Vrilakas – I understand the programmatic problems with the door placement, the trellis for pedestrians is nice, run the whole length.

Theisen – it’s open, so no shelter from the rain.

Czarneke – If you put a slanted roof by the entrances it makes a building in itself. I see a thin wall, I want to see a solid wall punched. Window and door closer, utilitarian. Either move the entry or do a simple, iconic thing. Too much fuss trying to do something.

Pitched roof would go with other roof better. Very plain. Friendlier street element. More uniformity without bottom set of windows.

Bradley – calls end of discussion. Review is due Monday, August 10th.
Still have slatted cyclone fence, pulled back and landscaped.

Bradley suggests fencing as art project. Email messages will seek quorum if need for meeting before end of August.

Design Advice Request for Overton Pettygrove 14th-15th formerly Fosler’s work on office. Looks residential. Outside NA, but on the edge.

Planning Minutes – 07/30/09

NWDA Planning Cte 07 30 2009

Committee: Chair John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Bill Welch, Don Genasci, Noel Johnson, Ron Walters, Greg Theisen.

Guests: Allan Classen, Lee Stapleton, Kim Knox, Meredith Hendricks, Kay Dannon, Diana Stevens, Scott Peterson, Mike Goldstein & Fran Goldstein, Mary Czarneki

MOTIONS:
1. Greg Theisen moved to approve the Historic Design Review of Ringside Restaurant on NW Burnside Ave. Seconded by Don Genasci.

VOTING:
1. Ringside motion unanimously approved.

* End of minutes *

Meeting Summary: We continued our discussion from last week of the proposed Streetcar maintenance facility located on 16th and Overton under I-405. Some of the concerns are, the use of slated cyclone fencing, the lack of an entrance facing 16th and the window pattern. We will have one last meeting next week to try to come to some accord with the developers. An addition to the Ringside restaurant, on Burnside, was approved through historic design review. - John Bradley, Committee Chairperson

Additional Meeting Notes:

Bradley–Streetcar storage; last week our comments were about the fence, cyclone with slats, look of the building, entrance on 16th.

Knox–Heard these concerns last week, also crime prevention (which we heard also from the Pearl side) and John’s wondering how to have storage in a zone where it is not allowed.

Existing conditions: maintenance, parking lots, streetcar storage Lovejoy-Marshall. New facility on adjacent block.
Constrained by streetcar tracks, form follows tracks.
Hendricks–Three properties, blocks under I-405.
Current entrance is reason for entrance on new building–shortest distance across the street. There’s a ramp, plaza area at the entrance. Trellis over the entry to mark it. Larger scale entrance to address 16th and the transit street. It’s a private access entrance, not a public entry–offices.

Ramp is 1’3”, which wouldn’t be needed on the street if mid block (which slopes.) Check-in is at existing building, then move to new building to change clothes and on to maintenance facility.

Knox–we are close to grade at that end, but it didn’t fit with the function.

Bradley–door entrance is important: how are you softening/mitigating the proposed entrance.

Hendricks (shows rendering) The corner on 16th is part of the entrance sequence, well landscaped; then you would encounter the trellis, announcing the entrance.

Genasci–Are you doing anything with the windows on the 16th street side, not conducive to street activity. We’re concerned about the quality of 16th, there are some nice buildings there and street could go either way depending on what’s built. Could go further down or improve. Still has potential, and use under the freeway could improve this. Concerned about windows, that it’s a single story building.

Hendricks–Windows are between 4’ and 6’, there two 2’x7’ windows, look skinny but are tall, we were trying to increase the mass on the street, and the building was increased to 15’ height, more that a usual one-story. We paired the 2’ windows with larger windows. The precast concrete has some limits for creating openings.
Genasci–This doesn’t echo local character; wall could be higher with a parapet. The old one-story buildings in the area are at 24’-25’ level and give greater presence. The Cap company building, for example, has larger, even windows, nice 8’ x 4’ windows, generosity in that building I don’t see here. It is an analogous use.

Knox–the architects are doing what Portland Streetcar asked which was to echo the existing facility and in the current industrial use style.

Genasci–you’re aware this is our ‘eastern edge’ transition area, will be more upscale, no longer actually an industrial area. This building is in a position to contribute to 16th or make it less than it is now.

Johnson–you’re direction was to echo the existing maintenance facility: why is that more legitimate than the older existing buildings for context?

Knox–it may not be more legitimate, but it’s an existing facility with a single owner. Johnson–the original building wasn’t good, so we can improve that.

Stapleton–understands ODOT only allows ‘temporary’ buildings and limits on use under the freeway. Can have people working under there. Lease with ODOT–I believe it applies to this and the existing building–you can’t have permanent structures. Knox–that has not come up in our discussions, ODOT has reviewed this up and down.
Stapleton–this did come up on a different structure. This is on a pad with panels.

Theisen–At first I was thinking there would be more of this under the freeway, thought about ‘is this what we want’ and I think this is a good use for this area, but I still wish we were getting some of the lease money.
I look at 16th, see the entrance could be more defined, but I don’t have a problem with the materials, though maybe with the window panels. Stapleton–some artwork facing 16th, perhaps.

Vrilakas–I understand this is a very functional building, but in the spirit of compromise, if the building were extended with a colonnade (for lack of better term) to extend this to the sidewalk, make it hardscape. Awning?
Genasci–your building is set up to have an entrance on the street; there’s a walkway along the front, the offices are on the back, center or elsewhere. What’s the problem? An extra 30’ walk from the other building is a non sequitur, and helps the building address the neighborhood. Won’t affect whether the building is temporary. Replacing a panel with glass is even better. These are simple, we’re not changing the function or internal design.

Knox–would recess, have some steps and some internal changes.
Hendricks–the tracks are not movable, and would need to push in to make room for entry.
Genasci–no, you wouldn’t, you open further down, slide the door over.

Hendricks–have 6” to 9” drop. Need ADA.
Bradley–we have another review, so there are two last things, fencing…

Knox–you mentioned you don’t like the slats. The existing fencing goes away, the new fence follows the edge with a swale outside on the side without the tracks. Hidden better.

Bradley–EX zone storage prohibition?

Knox–We have new storage tracks which obliterate exterior storage we already have.

Welch–shifting from existing to new area.
Theisen–doesn’t like cyclone fencing, we’ve suggested iron fencing; REI is using geometric style which many are using.

Hendricks–green space mitigates part of fence. Theisen–we have suffered from cyclone fencing all along under the freeway.
Johnson–is there room to incorporate these suggestions? Would you modify and and come back to show the changes?

Knox–Re the entry sequence, the ability to plunk a doorway for architectural show doesn’t make sense, should be functional. We can look at something intentional on the front. The windows provide more views into the building than Broadway Cab, they are a different purpose. We can look at regularizing the windows, but you won’t get what you have on the other side in terms of window/wall ration. Argues that this is actually better, more elegant solution. We have looked at cut into 16th street facade for entrance, happy to have the architect look a what that looks like inside.

Knox–Walking an extra 30’ isn’t a big deal for you, but it’s a problem with the gate being opened each time. The new door would be 90’ away.
Fran Goldstein–doesn’t the door bring attention to something you don’t want? People would think they could enter if it were a main door, and it’s not an entrance. The function is supported by the architecture.

Hendricks–we can look at a parapet with these materials. Look at different window patterns.

Vrilakas–if you think even one of these four concerns are addressed, it would make it a better building.

Bradley–they will come back next week.

Ringside remodel: have seen several times before. 2165 W. Burnside, Goose Hollow subdistrict Central City Plan (probably not true, but can discuss that later…)

Historic Design review, dedication 2’ ROW on Burnside, stormwater

Diana Stevens, Scott Peterson

New addition at north end of building, service area, additional dining room. All on one floor now, new basement area for wine storage below existing room. Minimal site work, new trash enclosure, stormwater filtration planter. Intending to make it look as is currently does. Trying to be efficient with the footprint, no larger than needed and behind the building. Genasci–same materials as existing?
Stevens–Using ___ block instead of clinker, but covering with stucco.

There is only a service, not a public entrance.

Genasci–the ownership of adjacent building is different, and you’re covering windows.
Stevens–we’ve been working with the city to help them make windows fire safe; the owner adjacent has been aware for some time. We’re blocking less than we did on prior proposals.
We are not improving the sidewalk.

Bradley–you are continuing the same canopy style as is on the front, all around the building as a unifying theme? Stevens–there’s only one, on the north end, but it is identical.

Bradley–zoning CXd may be incorrect since ordinance is remanded, but we’re using the Goose Hollow guidelines. Was Commercial and RH prior.

Czarneki–if you took out one bay of the two, shifted it wouldn’t lose much square footage and would add to graciousness of building. Stevens–we kept extension because every square foot is valuable.

Theisen–moves to approve.
Genasci–seconds

All committee members in favor.

Bradley–who will be here next week? Walters will be out. We will finish streetcar one way or the other. Would also like to discuss a formal recommendation to the board about the urban renewal area. Isn’t seeing any new information coming from the city meetings.

Johnson–has a proposal at informal stage. Bradley–we may look at it next week.

Planning Minutes – 07/23/09

NWDA Planning Cte 07 23 2009

Attending:
John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Stephen Metzler, Ron Walters, Bill Welch, Brian Bramlett, Juliet Hyams, Steve Pinger.
Lee Stapleton, Pete Colt, Mary Ann Pastene, Allan Classen

MOTIONS: None.

VOTING: None.

* End of minutes *

Meeting Summary: The Committee reviewed and commented on the Slabtown Work plan. The Committee reviewed and commented on the proposed streetcar maintenance facility at Overton and 16th. The project manager will return on July 30th after considering our requests. - John Bradley, Committee Chairperson

Additional Meeting Notes:

Slabtown Plan Committee Workplan–Genasci, Walters
Walters–Idea behind the committee is to create a vision for a master plan for what was called the Transition Area, in response to planning needs/voids. Recently Conway’s private process, a focus group asking neighbors what they would like there (with all the caveats that we were not speaking for NWDA. Lasted six months, 6:1 FAR drawings came from Conway’s consultant, we kept reminding them the NW DIstrict Plan had 3:1. An hiatus in the process has come, probably due to the economy–cost of consultants. They handed out a brochure about a sustainability approach the last day, the last we’ve heard.
Concepts for a master plan, form based code made sense, but it fizzled. Our vision was the NWDP, but then the Remand through that into question, we’re not sure which plan regulates the area.

What prompted the most recent formation of the Slabtown committee was in response to the need expressed at the Planning Committee for some knowledge and vision for this part of the neighborhood. “In favor or not” was not the right question because of the complexity. We want to describe what we do want: form based code, public placemaking. We need a public process where we come up with our own plan and drive it off the NWDP. There’s an opportunity for Genasci’s students to help us, to work with the Planning, Transportation and other committees, to fill out what we do want and build some consensus for something the neighborhood can put forward. At the June meeting the Board approved this, go work with Planning and Transportation committees. The committee needs to come up with a work plan, and due to the overlap with other committees we’ve been more specific that the usual workplan, including the public process and role of Genasci’s students.

Genasci–Outlined starting on p. 6 is a process, open to discussion and changes. Plan to enlarge the committee which worked on the work plan, which would be responsible for running the plan from here on in. Between now and September 15 will finalize the detail.
At the first of the year will do a five workshop series. The first will cover the NWDP as it exists. Open workshop, advertised. Will bring neighborhood up to date, provide orientation for the students. 3 to 5 students, advanced (ready to graduate) who will take material and pull it all together. We’ll take comments, catalogue issues.

Has to fit with academic year, one term for four workshops and next term to get to final workshop, testing the work. They will receive criticism from the community in the second and third workshop, and summarize at the fourth workshop.

At that point, spring break, then they will work on testing the master plan and the design standards which they have developed during the workshop phase. They will choose a site to plan a building, and this will illustrate for the neighborhood what buildings might look like. Housing, Community Center etc–they are free to choose the project. In the fifth workshop, these projects will be presented to the community.

Welch–in addition to giving us concrete examples, will you have some involvement by the City staff so we don’t have to do this over again. Genasci–all we can do is issue invitations: we will involve as many players as we can, it’s their choice.

Walters–ideally, the City will be aware and involved all along. At some point this will come up again, there may be a URA or another Conway proposal. We want to have some good drawings to show our version, showing that it can ‘pencil out’ when a 6:1 plan is proposed by developers.

Bradley–I think this is excellent. I’d like to see a master list, who’s here, where people come from, their email addresses so at the end we can show the record.

We would use that list to develop master outreach list, starting with an 1. announcement of intent. Right away. 2. Meet with people in Commissioner’s offices, this is what we’re doing, be aware, look for further announcements. 3. educate people about what Form Based Code is.
I’ll help develop that, have books on order concerning this.

Why did you choose to go all the way to Lovejoy. Genasci–I’m probably responsible for that. There is this large tract of land with a lot of open space in it, from Lovejoy to the Willamette. We didn’t want to focus on Conway, but on the neighborhood, what is likely developable land. Seemed like a neat package. The freeway or at least the arm into the neighborhood will be in play. I felt it would be artificial to limit it to Conway.
Bramlett–it provides context, not limited.
**Bradley–Neighborhood walk paper and charrette was done in preparation for the NWDP. MS will distribute.

Committee should make some sort of comment on how we will handle the URA. Listening to the Board, interested parties in the neighborhood are saying they are not interested in an URA, or if there is one, in two nodes. The dumbell shape doesn’t seem to be flying well.

Vrilakas–I’m impressed. In order to make this something other than an academic exercise, we need a commissioner to champion it. Likely Amanda. This is very well done, with measurable start and measurable stop which makes it acceptable to a politician.

Stapleton–similar to formed-based, is flexible zoning concept the city is pursuing. Should be more open about where FAR is placed, some 1:1 and some up to even 8:1 by the bridge.

Walters–1. I think what we’re proposing is we’re starting with the NWDP, visions consistent with this. Several years from now may be a negotiated process. 2. I think that input will ultimately come out of the public process.

Pete Colt–good work, good to have proposal to start with. Get info on the internet, access students.

Bradley–Type II Proposal Streetcar Maintenance Facility. At full block site Northrup, Overton, Lovejoy, 15th and 16th. Building with offices, facilities. Chain link with slats etc. See LUR.

Kim Knox from Shiels Oblitz Johnson, on behalf of Portland Streetcar, Inc.
Fundamental design overview. Design team is directed to match existing, modifications are due to trying to make use of existing space, get warm bodies under the freeway, and to expand the streetcar maintenance in anticipation of east side loop.
Important functionally to system, 6 to 8 new cars to start for storage, eventually up to 22.
Stapleton–is this still considered a temporary building under ODOT rules?

Knox–not familiar with this, hasn’t come up during my meetings with ODOT
Pete–proposed pedestrian promenade NW 16th to Kearny. Any sidewalk removed? Knox–no. We’re not changing any of the sidewalks. The 16th avenue frontage: because the pillars don’t let us make street presence on the named streets, we put the public frontage on NW 16th. That way the fencing on the east side where the storage is now will remain the boundary. On Northrup the fence will be set up to the sidewalk, Overton fence will be set back 15’ for swale.

Pete–slats attract graffiti.
Kim–do you want to see the storage which is not allowed in EXd? We also have graffiti– a new car was tagged.

Bradley–how does one propose getting around the storage prohibition? The fences really don’t work… The other building is ok. Can we spend some more money on getting better fences? Streetcar Inc. is asking us to turn a blind eye to what is not adjustable code.

Pete–can we get plumbing for pooch promenade?

Genasci–16th side has no real entrance, reads drawing as entry gate in chain link. We ask people to make buildings that have a real entrance, interest on the street. This has windows but it denies the street. Not a very urban idea.

Knox–there’s a low fence, gate is on east side of canopied area. Not at the entrance. Genasci–could be handled in a more interesting way. Larger windows? Some slots you can shoot through. Single story building on the street, why not two stories? Put a presence on the street? Could contribute to the neighborhood as opposed to being simply functional.
Knox–it is a form follows function building, industrial. On a site hard pressed to find any other use. Hitting the program as precisely as we can.
Welch–program meaning money.

Walters–the drawings make it look worse than it might be. Some small investment might make it look honestly attractive, it’s between the Pearl and NWDA.

Knox–we don’t need the space, will cost more.

Pete–look at CPTED in the design, needs to be open to the street with eyes on the street.
Walters–I walk by this every day and safety is an issue as it is.

Welch–buildings will work their way down filling up low rent space?

Knox–I think they’d need to do another study, at some point there’s a limited return when too many facilities are put together.

Bradley–re main entrance, do you know anything about the programmatic that require not main entrance?

Knox–if door swings out onto 16th would need to set back. The sense of place is not on the sidewalk but off to the side in the courtyard without having to set the whole building back.

Genasci–if one looks at the other side of the street there are some very nice buildings: we tend to look at 16th as a throw-away street, but it could be improved.

Knox–we can look at the inset door idea, but we thought the courtyard was a better approach.

Metzler–did you bring a copy of the landscape plan?
Knox–I can get that to you. It does meet the landscape code, but are taking out the ivy and making up for that. All exterior storage, not parking.
Re how do you make rationale for exterior storage–taking out the eastern part is eliminating existing storage, a trade off. Not expanding total square footage by much (a little more on north side.)

Vrilakas–when a building is by necessity brutal, couldn’t you plant ivy on it. I know ivy has a bad name… Is that realistic?

Knox–more like a trellis.

Bradley–how do we want to proceed here? Vote today? We have until the tenth to comment.

We’ve heard about fencing, modify for main entrance and along 16th. Knox–can come back next week. 8:30 Pinger asks for context along street.

Bradley–Announcements. Still have not heard back from Douglas Hardy regarding what will happen at Dove Lewis now that there are no specific design guidelines: I believe this requires at Type III.
The code said that because we had our new style of design guidelines in the NWDP, what area looks like and aspirations for that. These were supposed to count as specific design guidelines and this area was written out of Type III and became Type II. This condition is no longer in effect, as the plan is no longer extant.

It is in EXd and they are storing stuff there. Should we drop a dime on them? Walters will call.
Welch, Genasci–we wanted design standards in combination with design review but it got watered down upon adoption. This was set up by Jeff Joslin.
The Remand has been postponed until at least mid September (Ordinance 1) in response to what the city heard.

Will meet July 30 and look then to see who will be here in August, to plan meetings.

Walters–storage facility has already broken ground.

Pinger–would like to look at design code again. Needs to be stronger.

Walters–what came out of the Board meeting was trying to dust of the White Paper to get something in place in response to the Remand ordinance 1. We have a little bit of time before September. Should have some feedback from the Planning committee.
Metzler–will only be limited to certain zoning types.

Hyams–design review is in there.

Bradley–concerned that the city will simply respond by saying that this will be rolled into the Portland Plan. Some of the biggest problems with the plan are no setbacks on garages, how many garages, no safety standards for garages.
City Council has the ability to look at anything they want to once the ordinance is open, or to narrowly look at only the transportation. We have to look at good compromise proposal so we don’t have to spend another ten grand.

Bramlett–in 2006 white paper is a section on URA with respect to the Conway area. Can we get these done as a unit so we have something in 60 days.

Adjourn 9:20 am

Planning Minutes – 06/11/09

NWDA Planning Cte 6 11 09

John Bradley, Bill Welch, Don Genasci, Roger Vrilakas, Ron Walters, Kevin Kenaga, Steve Pinger, Juliet Hyams Lee Stapleton, Allan Classen

Bradley–Full schedule next few weeks: an LUR on landscaping in ESCO area; out early because they want to get out of planting a lot of required plantings in redoing their parking lot.

Please look this over so we can develop some asks when they come in.

MS **Send Link to ESCO plantings & call them for next week.
Also next week, guy from old Dove Lewis property, low income housing.
Put this off another week? Next week ESCO and then Abe Farkas at 8:30

Following week Dove Lewis June 25th.
Also call from OPUS on 19th & Lovejoy–they’ve taken over this project.

Portland Plan Rollout Strategy–from Deborah Stein, would like input from NWDA.
A long rollout strategy & desired outcomes: theirs (city staff) are startup process again, public feedback, stakeholders, engage in public trust… (see document.)

What are our desired outcomes?

Welch–a process where are concerns are heard AND adopted as opposed to being overruled by City Council.

Bradley–they rolled this out once, it flopped, trying to re-energize this, and City is interested in re-energizing public process.
Pinger–there was a meeting earlier in the year with lots of neighborhood reps which was a fiasco–the equivocated… They got everyone together but offered no direction. Diffused a lot of the participants you’d want to have.

Walters–so many overlapping and contradictory plans–if we can’t figure out what the moving parts are (and we’re as knowledgeable as any community group) how do we make sense of this.

Genasci–What do they want to change? Sieber– original process emphasized adding Economic and Environmental planning aspects to the core land use focus.

Vrilakas–this isn’t convincing to me, greenwash. If they want active community involvement it needs total support from council, neighborhoods showed up with agenda items.

Welch–we get involved because of a crisis, need to manufacture crisis to bring people to the group.

Pinger–as Don was saying, read existing plans.

Walters–empower and legitimize neighborhoods. More neighborhood power and control at least in having plans enforced.

• a process where are concerns are heard AND adopted as opposed to being overruled by City Council.
• Read and recognize the NW District Plan
• Advisory groups
• CIty Council involvement and commitment
• Greatly enhanced citizen participation
• More neighborhood power and control at least in having plans enforced.

Bradley–will draft something for next week.

PGE Park

Copy of Goose Hollow letter circulating. Redo of GNA for soccer, Jerry Powell sent out a letter, mentioned comprehensive transportation planning. General changes, solicits comments.

We had approximately 72 baseball games and 16 soccer games (?) and will be trading small attendance games for larger attendance soccer games (17). Does this shift how we look at the GNA. There’s a section in it that requires how far away from the stadium they are to clean up, but with low attendance they usually only clean up one block.
Revisit traffic and parking controls.

Welch–doesn’t think this is the best use of a community stadium, it’s absurd for the city to cave to the soccer league and for the neighborhood to agree to it–and I like soccer.

Bradley–other uses will include high school football, other soccer, bands; other supplementary uses will continue.

Vrilakas–getting on or off MAX–need new CTMP.

Bradley–I don’t understand what’s driving this. It won’t be done my next week. So far as I’m concerned it won’t be done next week. Don’t know if/when it’s going to City Council.

I think they are imagining 15,000 attendees per game. Beavers are currently 5000, soccer a tad better, maybe 6,000. Full stadium 18,000-20,000.

Walters–concerned about the additional people who will spill into our neighborhood. Crime, litter, etc.
Bradley–that’s already in the GNA–liquor limits as well. Each potential problem has a radius of patrol as dictated by how many people attend.
Walters–should we think about extending to areas of likely traffic flows–as far as Lovejoy streetcar? Parking permits?

Vrilakas–let’s say you put Merritt Paulson’s name on each piece of litter generated from the stadium and track it so they have to pick it up. If you could ID their litter you could cast net as wide as you need.

Welch–lease them parking lots for local revenue.

Juliet Hyams–we should be doing some real outreach to the folks in Pete’s world to see what impacts they are concerned about. Is this some implicit support of soccer?

Bradley–Kim’s group should be involved in this, but they just met last week.

with the permission of the committee, I will write and tell GHFL and the Council that we need more time to look this over. Will CC Merritt Paulson, Dave Logsdon, Steve Janik.

Welch–due to change in circumstances we are looking at significant changes
Bradley–CTMP, how stadium fits in, how it fits with idea of Main Street, underutilized lots on game nights, parking, public transportation…

Pinger–we need time to understand impacts on our part of the GNA.
Bradley–we can’t sign off on this or we’ll lose capacity for input. We’ll get the Transportation involved. I’ll contact Ramone Corona about the Zone L and Zone K rules.

Planning Minutes – 06/04/09

NWDA Planning Cte 06 04 2009

John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Bill Welch, Steve Pinger, Ron Walters, Noel Johnson, Steve Metzler, Juliet Hyams, Greg Theisen, Lee Stapleton, Dustin Posner , Allan Classen

Guest: Jeff Tashman, principle Tashman Johnson LLC, TIF/URA consulting

Pinger–sat on Friends of Urban Renewal group, which ultimately brought suit re satellite districts and other issues.

Tashman–group of people called Friends of Urban Renewal, re River District, & future.
Started in 1979 with City of Eugene, then Tualatin, became consultant 1991, worked across the state. Has done a lot of work for PDC, even before he became a consultant.
Was a project, “Future of Urban Renewal” which pulled together officials from city, county, schools, Erik Sten moved this forward. In January of 2008 unveiled proposal for 20-ish acre satellite district in Pleasant Valley for school & community service. He told them he could not help them because this wasn’t legal. Contacted by Neilson Abeel, discussed what city had done, perhaps to change their mind. City group wrote up amendments to River District, pushing out at edges, adding acreage to edges formerly downtown & South Park Blocks URA plus David Douglas satellite. Idea was to move some areas into River District which had fewer legal hurdles than the older URA’s.

Bob Ames, former Chair PDC, Port of Portland Board said to Council that David Douglas site strictly illegal, and other items were problematic. The Council went ahead and adopted amendments, Friend of UR challenged this at LUBA. Points we made were:
For property to be in a URA it needs to be Blighted, meet particular conditions, things you couldn’t expect private sector to do on their own. No statement was made by the City showing that the original River District was still blighted.
Projects have to relate to the problems they identify.

Some of the projects, with huge price tags, were identified hardly at all. e. g. $54 million without showing what it’s for; $35 million labeled “Multnomah County” without specificity, not tied to any project.
We won on some points: LUBA said if you can expand River District, need to show blight; other points were minor. LUBA can be very narrow, and lawyers felt that LUBA had made just enough to
On David Douglas, they said you’re proposing a Public School, center, need to show direct relationship to River District. Best the city came up with was

Working with Tim Ramis, looking at Settlement Agreement: Projects and expansions within the scope of the law. Hoping city will come back with a counter proposal we can agree to. David Douglas seems to be dropped off. Others may challenge even this possible agreement, such as LOWV, who had an editorial in the Oregonian saying the

Public investment is to help restore an area, then it goes away, and once finished property taxes come in. Council adopted resolutions saying River District was incredibly successful, then turned around to say it was blighted.
A group of us who have long worked with UR, think it’s a good concept, see this stretching as likely to break UR, backlash in legislature. Tashman’s group includes Wayne Kingsley, Portland Spirit & involved in UR in East Portland, Pat LaCrosse, former head PDC, Ollie Norville, PDC’s first lawyer and wrote the laws in 1959-1960. We weren’t thought of as folks who would sue city over UR, they were our clients.

Oral arguments at LUBA, Norville spoke first, only about who we were in this group: nothing to gain or lose (Tashman will never work for PDC again, and they were a good client.)

Message is if you want to expand an area, need to show it has problems. The other principle, still lacking court reply, is about projects relating to the issues.

Problem Portland is facing is governance. There were a few years where Sam, Randy and Erik voted for what they wanted, and UR decisions were often purely political. PDC was set up separately to get URA work out of day-to-day city council workings. PDC was criticized for being a tool of the city, but they did at least believe things should be done legally.
Erik was supporter of affordable housing, City Council passed ordinance that 30% of URA’s had to be spent on Affordable Housing, but this (however good) didn’t relate to the actual conditions or blight.

Proposal was made to make PDC more transparent, open to auditing and evaluation: council changed these to a ballot measure making City Council the Budget Committee of PDC, which passed. PDC has authority weakened; when we talk about URA’s we don’t talk to PDC, but to City Council.

You guys and the citizens of Portland could focus on to greatest effect would be to get the governance of PDC back to people who want to follow the spirit and letter of the law, who understand the issues involved in getting an area to develop.

Pearl District second only to Hillsboro Intel investment/Orenco projects in state history of successful URA’s. UR needs to be well managed to counter the possibility that the legislature will do away with UR. Current bill to be signed by Governor weakens UR is a small way.

Clearly there have been abuses, but until Portland and until the River District, there was enough respect for the legal structure that the program survived. Now a chance that the program will be taken away.
Johnson–Real estate, development and UR’s. As former Trammell Crow contractor, saw little done compared to damage done to company. Impressions?

Tashman–hard to get people involved in anything these days, last year and a half in particular real estate folks only thinking of survival. In the past, business was active enough that people on the Council responded. Now there’s a council that was elected which doesn’t support business concerns, downtown renewal needs.

I’m one of a list of maybe 25 consultants who did studies showing it’s more expensive to do redevelopment in Portland than in surrounding cities.

Solution (now everything is in flux) it looks like Nick Fish, Dan Saltzman are reasonable people who can take into account other interests. Dan did hold off on $15 million for soccer in not yet created URA. Don’t know much about Amanda. Sam may or may not be around and Randy does what he wants to.

Stapleton–isn’t there a perception from the public that they are paying and the developers are sitting pretty, and projects would have been developed already? Real or imagined, the public tired of paying other people’s way.

Tashman–Measure 50 changed UR with greater impact on local funds; should have shown council that UR has its costs, and should only be used with greatest need. County is now more articulate about protecting interests, as is PPS.

More than perception, this is reality. Region benefits from downtown Portland development, it is broadly beneficial, but UR money should not be regarded as ‘free’ money.

Metzler–opinion of gerrymandered, select properties which appear to favor particular owners/entities?

Tashman–the law is unclear, but the fingers on the River District make it clearer that they’re looking for revenue development rather than mitigating blight. Benefit from development in these ‘fingers’ is less in the district and more to adjacent areas.

I’ve been on both sides: stations communities on rail line might be a single area, but our lawyer didn’t think they were, arguable they could be legal–I’ve argued that–but the law is unclear. It comes down to governance, wise use.

Theisen–several of us own property adjacent to proposed area, so I’m struggling with defining blight for the NW area. I’ve been in my single family home and walking, riding through the Transition area, and have seen a number of projects which go forward. Given that slow, percolating activity and an historic awareness of property values in the area. The ConWay props were IG, now EX and worth a lot more.
We’ve articulated with property owners what assumptions were in place, and those assumptions are changing.
Posner–is definition of Blight clear enough?

Tashman–definition is very broad; feeling of UR people around the state is that it not be too narrowly defined. There is a case to be made that if decisions continue to not be made in a responsible way that this definition should be tightened up.

Blight isn’t just undeveloped, but that the trend is that it is getting worse. Properties may not be as productive as they might be, but are more so than ten years ago in the River District. A discussion about the rules would be good, but again I get back to good decision making.
Stapleton–Parking lots are defined as possible blight, but are in some areas the highest and best use.
Tashman–when Goldschmidt’s downtown plan was adopted, a great deal of land was in parking lots, and wasn’t highest and best use, not a great city in the early 1970s. In and of itself, today, one couldn’t use this as a criteria for blight.

Johnson–can’t get tax increases, services are needed but not afforded (in California) so UR is seen as way to get the public to do some things the private sector can’t, is this the way it is? Tashman–yes. Urban Renewal has not gone down, only tool clients say they have–sometimes underestimate what it can do, however.

Essentially insolvent public agencies–highest and best use of a dollar is for Multnomah County to provide assistance, a good argument can be made here, or for keeping schools open vs. UR.

Sieber–how does the assertion that private developers are benefiting from UR work with your statement that the Council is not pro-business?

Tashman–Changes Council has made in which projects they want funded, which are less directly related to development, such as affordable housing, want some major transportation (eastside steetcar, couch-burnside) so projects aren’t related to project development. Some still are, but argument could be made to finish the River District so the agencies get a windfall of tax dollars and new areas can be evaluated for UA.

If terminated, debt would be paid off, then acres available for other areas. Took a bunch of properties from Park Blocks, but because of challenge at LUBA are now not in River District, so parts of Old Town are in no URA now, and could go into a new one.
Bradley–re project choice, how are choices arrived at–such as Civic Stadium with little public benefit, or Lents, which might be a little better? Tashman–need a relationship to benefit of the UR District; should be more sideboards in the law, direction on how you spend the money. Areas aren’t paying property taxes, and if LUBA can’t find that projects have to be for ultimately taxable uses, then the law needs some changes.
Bricks and Mortar, but can be private bricks and mortar. Can’t be used for operations, only capital costs.
Bradley–why has PDC’s funding of non-development businesses been such a small portion of the budget?

Theisen–let’s say my friend who has storefront improvement on MIssissippi, and loans for capital projects, but not for advertising etc. Then I wonder what % of costs were for storefront, are there limits in the district?
Tashman–that’s a grant, the storefront project, they were limited to $15,000, I think.
If you look at Airport Way, it had a huge impact on businesses, people owned building and ran business or developer put in flex space. Some UR projects are more focused on making investment so business can operate and generate jobs. On NW Front, Bachner Siltronics project was on a contaminated site, was UR project during the Goldschmidt administration.

Pinger–pretty sweeping URA proposed on west side, Fremont to Ross Island Bridge. Some questions about whether this area should be created or not. UR tools can be good and evil, both. With this proposal I am concerned at a level of resistance about speaking about what form this would be if it came into existence. It would be almost as large as the whole study area, and that seems to go against the historic use of URA’s in small areas. This larger area where you can shuffle money around seems new?

Tashman–when a URA is formed to capture revenues from projects in the development pipeline, that’s suspect, though they commonly are included by necessity. Now this should be defined in relation to the condition of public agencies.
Moyer Tower, even if it kept to the original development schedule, won’t be on the tax rolls for a while. The benefit would go to PDC, not to other public agencies, and this is a problem. Wheeler and Cogen are making

Bradley–request from GHFL to look at Stadium GNA, Sieber will send out current GNA.

Old Dove Lewis site 90 units low income housing (no paperwork yet) John will invite them.

Hyams–Exec. Committee will talk about committee structure and authority on Wednesday.

Theisen–I’m starting to feel some method to our madness, not sure what’s being worked on. We have a good sense of what’s in our plan, and what isn’t but is what we want for the future of the Transition Area and even the eastern corridor. We can prioritize, make goals, what do we want, we speak selfishly about what we need in NW vs. needs in County, LOWV factored in etc. If certain projects are high on our list, what tools are available, is UR the only tool? When the broader committee starts to make a decision, we could for example say that our three major employers could work together on parking needs without using UR dollars. Not sure about parks, but this is the idea. Genasci–the size of the URA is critical, if it’s huge, we may not see the benefits. Limit the size could be part of the discussion.

Hyams–dealing with same questions, would this be good for the neighborhood, list of suggested or proposed projects, which makes me nervous, this should be coming from us. How much of TIF would stay in our node?

Planning Minutes – 05/21/09

NWDA Planning Cte 5 21 09

John Bradley, Ron Walters, Don Genasci, Roger Vrilakas, Bill Welch, Kim Carlson, Stephen Metzler, Greg Theisen, Juliet Hyams, Allan Classen; Erik ? (neighbor, developer?)

Peter Englander, PDC; Bob Alexander, Special Projects, PDC. Looking at possible URA in West Central Portland.

Alexander–study expanded to look at areas adjacent to downtown URA’s, 900 acres PSU through Goose Hollow To Conway.

Bradley–we wanted to discuss other URA’s and how they worked, and how this current process will lay out. Amanda Fritz told us earlier this week that there was a new advisory group, including Ted Wheeler who suggested that instead of looking first at how to do a URA, the question should be whether a plan was needed on the west side.
Englander–Bruce Allen, our Guru for PDCs, is in Africa right now. I have some experience, as does Bob Alexander. I think you’ll get different perspectives from different people about how other URAs have worked. Encourages committee to talk with people in neighborhoods where these have been applied. We can give you technical answers about increase in assessed values. It has by a large amount. Has it increased livability in the city? Yes, people think so.

Involvement in the different Light Rail projects have been good, Lents town center has been slow to move but it is, there was lots of community involvement in the Interstate URA. My work was on central eastside and downtown. You need to get a sense of how this has worked in different neighborhoods. Our engagement with neighborhood stakeholders has increased considerably, as have our budgets for this component.

Alexander–regarding the new committee’s charge: first to determine if we will have a new URA, then if so, where would the boundaries be, agreement on mission and value of the district, what you want to achieve, which areas will be included based on this, then to actual dollar amount. Chair Wheeler made it obvious to everyone that it’s not just about where, but if. This is up in the air, will be looked at over the next five months.
Bradley–what are the specifics of how you, PDC, will come up with your recommendations to the committee? For example, the definition of blight, the current economic climate, small businesses being more than just real estate development and your relatively small proportion of support to small businesses.
Englander–1. How will we go about this? 2. What is blight? 3. Given that economic development is an important component & how much goes to small business (grants and loans).

1. At the first meeting we didn’t talk about this much, it was to educate people about what a URA is.
What should the overall guiding goals be if we do a URA? To do specific projects we have to conform to area plans including the URA plan. What we propose to do first as staff supporting the committee was to focus on the goals, attempt to focus on four categories 1 Economic Development/Job Creation; 2 Housing; 3 Infrastructure (parks, roads rails); 4 to tie these together and bring in other categories including those unique to central city–cultural district, schools, retail in the downtown core keeping retail.

City’s latest attempt at economic development strategy seems likely to be adopted by City Council, focus on areas important to Portland like green development. Infrastructure will follow. Then we’ll go out in particular quadrants of the 900 acre area talking about the possibilities in each. The NW quadrant is essentially N. of Burnside W. of I-405. Slabtown & Conway, then Goose Hollow, and we divided the downtown into two chunks.
We’ll talk with NWDA, ConWay, Goose Hollow who will talk directly with the committee.
Will hold two workshops out in the community, with a different approach to education people about URA’s and what they can do.
We’ll come back to get to the questions, what URA’s can do in the modern age (it’s changed) are there other tools, can these be leveraged? Goal is to come up with recommendation, and if so what goals are to be achieved. IF we go ahead, September through March, and a public process to create the URA itself.

Re the Committee–it’s unique in how it meshes public officials with a wide variety of people with a stake in the neighborhoods and some who don’t . E.G. Jay Nichols, CEO Leatherman Tools, people for higher education, business interests. This is more of a mix of people than previous groups.

Hyams–didn’t see a roster in her binder. Will each have an alternate? Alexander–we will soon, a couple of people weren’t confirmed. Yes, we are going to have designated alternates.

Hyams–how will we know when we’ve gotten to a decision? What if we don’t want a URA? Alexander–we’ll go around the room getting key issues, will then research and respond on technical issues for following meeting. Various alternatives may be mapped out, as in prior process. The question will be why NWDA doesn’t want a URA–is it not in their area, or not at all–there would be different answers depending on the reasons.

Bradley–for our district the report shows this would be the area where you would raise the most tax increment dollars, but there may be the most cost for infrastructure (which we don’t know.) Alexander–ECONorthwest looked at that and showed this area as most productive of tax increment dollars, but this URA would be a single area, no subareas. Bradley–assuming we want a URA, we could see a net sucking of resources out of this area to support other portions. Goose Hollow wants a Main Street, PSU a tech High School, Ted Wheeler for projects. Needs hard nosed analysis, cart before the horse when we don’t first know what this would give to the city re econ plan, 20 minute neighborhoods–sees squishy decision then rationalization.
Alexander–I chose to do economic study first: areas are shown on the map what’s likely to develop in the next 20 years. There are some ideas for Goose Hollow, for example, but no real dollar proposals, and this is true of the other areas at this stage. We know we have a large number of demands on dollars in a URA that don’t create an increment, such as the Streetcar.
Take NW area, one could expect tax increment but also projects, and the dollars are not kept in each sequestered area. The downtown area has more increment than the other areas combined, if I were a business person there I’d be worried that those dollars would be sucked out to Goose Hollow and NW.

Walters–doesn’t see figures matching this claim.
Alexander–the area north of Market 2.4 billion in assessed value, some URAs claim some of this but over time this has the largest amount of growth. If you start with an undeveloped area like ConWay the value increase is the greatest.
Metzler–are several smaller URAs feasible? Alexander–we’ve been advised by our financial folks that one large district would from a bond underwriter’s POV a larger single one works best. Large is relative: 900 acres here, 2700 acres in Lents, 3000 Interstate. It becomes less financially feasible for small areas. In NY there are some small, precise districts but that requires a 70-story tower to support another small area.

Could draw inner boundaries but it limits flexibility.
Theisen–Juliet Hyams is on the committee representing a larger organization. In terms of the element of the decision-making process and my experience in other URAs–in Portland it’s property and property-value driven process. There’s a list of wants, project list wishes that are real estate, value and job driven: do you suggest we put together our list? How do you value one want over another? For example senior living needs vs streetcar?

Alexander–arm your representative with your list of needs, we want to come up with that list fairly soon. Threshold question–if a district is formed, what are the priorities. It’s real estate driven because that’s how it works, but that said there are funds in each URA for programming, not tied to the map. We have to define, list large, known projects by statute.

Englander–If not the right tool, it can shape the area to make it conducive to a particular business environment. We’ve been pretty darn creative how we use the real estate tool to support businesses. Often the largest line item (rent) and we try and address those as best we can, with storefront support, creating environments that result in lower rents, tenant improvement programs over a five to ten year period.
We feel so strongly about this, we changed departments so not about Urban Renewal per se but business development. UR has not always been helpful, agencies around the country have done some pretty dumb things, but especially in today’s age with convergence of economic development and Central City planning, we can figure out how we want to do this for the next generation–this is our chance to lay out what central Portland looks like for the next 20 years. We had Chet Orloff come talk about the history of the city, plans and urban renewal. We have fewer plans but much better ability to implement them. Prior to 1950 rich people hired people from outside to design their city; since then it’s local with more involvement from different groups, Portland has done a pretty good job of this.
We would have like to do the Central City Plan first, then look at UR. UR takes a long time to work, it’s a 20 year process, and if we wait we won’t have the resources soon. We often don’t think about how UR can be used for placemaking: we’re so much out there working with the folks it affects the most, with the caveat that City Council has control of this now. As a manager who’s out in the neighborhoods a lot and he continually tells the powers that be what the neighborhoods want.
Theisen–re planning cart before urban renewal horse, we have a plan. Alexander–use that plan as base for your project requests. Genasci–we have preferred densities, but if overwhelmed by UR these could double, which is what is driving ConWay. What is the interplay? Alexander–UR can’t trump zoning and planning, you have to work that out with the planning department. Can cap using existing zoning, so URA is a moot point.
Hyams–that’s where neighborhood and citizen participation come in. Wheeler said people are looking from Europe at our plans, the difference is the amount of citizen participation.
Englander–yes, in Downtown Waterfront URA, in OTCT there was an interest by developers whether height/FAR density could be increased. We looked at it, because UR money was ending. 4 story 75’ buildings in historic district would have to raise value, so we looked at increasing density. Citizen involvement resulted in the neighborhood supported increased density but so many other people wanted to preserve the historic district that we aren’t looking at increasing density and are working to develop a way to do this.
There were developers on both sides, and my personal opinion is that higher density is dead.

Welch–ConWay originally supported the density in our neighborhood plan but now want to change that.
Genasci–this puts pressure on the city to open this up.

Erik–speaking from developer’s POV, the focus on saving structures in the historic district preserves the residence and transfers the FAR, is one example of how this neighborhood has preserved historic character. Looking closer to the freeway the increase in height to shield the freeway is another example of how you can make both the neighborhood and the developers happy. Makes things feasible while preserving area, good groundwork to build upon in the form of incentives. The land isn’t cheap, which is what has driven ConWay to build taller, Kulongoski’s program to subsidize via grant money can offset this.

Alexander–needs to leave, but is available to come back anytime.

Bradley–now is good time to digest this, begin to look at a project list and a number of variables.

Alexander–we’ll be putting all the pieces on the website, Chet Orloff’s presentation, Mondays 101 etc.

Englander–encourages people to sign up for this projects distribution list.

Genasci–Announces 6 pm meeting June 4 First Thursday student projects presentation for ConWay area. The students are well aware of the NW Plan. Can give Ron Walters project disc to put earlier (and these) projects on the website.
Is there a need for another look at that material next year? I’ll have another winter/spring class of 5 to 7 students who could look at this.

Walters–would like that, could work with us instead of just seeing the result at the end of the class.
Genasci–could be part of the public process, graphically illustrate what people are talking about. Their availability will be January through June 2010.

Theisen–I work in Old Town with office looking out at the river, I see the geese flying by, and wonder why more people don’t live along the river. Seeing condos come up as great places to live. So many things that happen on development side are personality-driven by developers. We tend to think of them as institutional, but they are often individual, based on financing, property value and many characteristics. Let’s not forget this as we get involved in the URA project list. These don’t have to be huge or institutional, but about people with the money and the vision.

Bradley–I’ve been impressed by the area around the Ace Hotel, the Commons, boutiques.

Erik –The thing about the market now is that three or four years ago you could bring 20% equity to the table; if there was a way now to steer projects in a different direction it should be happening, you need 45%-50% equity and the projects are moving forward with grants, and these have stipulations. Those grantors can influence the projects, tenant mix, apartments rather than condos. There are more players deciding what a project will look like, tremendous opportunity to have input.

Vrilakas–seemed from PDC that if we stuck to the NW District Plan this would work. It doesn’t work this way.

Planning Minutes – 05/14/09

NWDA Planning Cte 05 14 2009

John Bradley, Brian Bramlett, Don Genasci, Roger Vrilakas, Bill Welch, Ron Walters, Steve Pinger, Lee Stapleton, Allan Classen

Bradley–Type II 800 NW 25th CU review, R1, alter the site of previous LUR which approved changes to Hillside Residence, 26-bed convalescent home. Lots also 2455 NW Johnson, & 3 on Kearney, four residences. Seeking to sell these and reduce.
Non-conforming review goes through Type II, no net increase in impacts, trips, smoke, glare, litter, outside displays or storage etc. Not lessen residential character of R zone.
Not detract from character of the zone.

Marty Stiven, Land Use Planner, Jim Mertz, Ken Buckles with Willamette View. WV operated Hillside until July, now wish to sell the side residences, and therefore need to modify the CU to remove that encumbrance. Would still allow operation of Willamette View as 26-bed facility. Current construction is not related to this app–fire damage repair and required mitigation of share sewer lines. BES required this prior to any modifications to the CU.

Has had one phone call with questions from resident.
Bradley–Our main concern is will there be any change in the operation of the facility?
Stiven–this action doesn’t change anything, limits on beds etc. stay the same. If a new operator took over, any change over $X would trigger non-conforming development standards (such as stormwater improvements.) CU goes with the land, not the operator.
Willamette View has put agreement obligation to buy the properties, but they’ll sell them immediately. Was meant to operate for ten years, then purchase, but we asked for an early out.

Stapleton–believes the original CU was based on the size, doesn’t this reduction lower the number of allowed beds? Believes the total number of beds were tied to the entire parcel size.
Stiven–did operate with 26 beds, understood the beds were tied to the facility not the adjacent properties. Did not understand that the number of beds was tied to the total size of the combined properties.

Bradley–Also unclear to us what can be built on the Single Family Home lots, due to the NW District Plan remand which seems to say it’s not in effect. I don’t know whether this affects this property.

Welch–you are selling the four homes as such, to be fixed up.
Mertz–Correct. One is SF home, other is a triplex, have been used that way. Property is under one ownership. One buyer was interested in all the pieces, but no longer, so now must separate the parcels. Plan to market individually.
Stiven–this action would remove the four houses from conditional use, though they have never been used this way.
Genasci–it’s an R1 zone which could make for much greater density.
Bradley–but under the ’77 plan the zoning was defined differently (even if equivalent to R1) and the plan prefers SFH. That said, splitting off the lots brings the use back to base zone.

Mertz–most of the conversion to triplexes cosmetic, can be restored. One potential buyer wants to do a single home, another to retain a triplex.

Welch–my memory is that the Edelman’s acquired the property in anticipation of growth, but didn’t.

Stapleton–may have purchased in order to increase CU capacity in adjacent facility.

Vrilakas–despite these questions, I think this is good thing both for increasing the housing stock and retaining convalescent home.

Moves that the Committee support the CU modification. Welch seconds. Bradley suggests asking if the capacity is tied to the inclusion of these properties.

Vrilakas–also would like to see the 26-bed size even in the reduced size.

Mertz–I think some leeway in number of beds would be good, we had trouble operating even at 26 beds. It’s a small facility and hard to run at an affordable rate structure.

Pinger–is the objective of this committee to allow the removal of the four lots but not reduce the capacity of the underlying facility? Yes.

Bradley–will write the letter saying we understand the remaining facility will operate at 26 beds.

All in favor, Welch not voting.

Bradley–URA. Yesterday a discussion, Steve Pinger, Kim Carlson, Ron Walters, Bradley attended. Mayoral appointed study committee will begin to look at total URA for Westside. Too large now in total acreage, but could take 1000 acres out of Airport URA. City is allowed 15% total appraised value total URA’s, now at 11%, so would need to be shrunk. Current ‘dumbbell’ shaped, including ConWay, PGE Park, Goose Hollow, some Downtown, South of Market (up to med school).

There’s a mod being crafted for how URA money is divided. Was applied to city bonding capacity for 20-year period and revenue stream restored. This leaves out the County and School Districts, so a bill has now passed the house and going to the state Senate, Fair Share Bill 457, will modify how the URA occurs over time. The base zone is there, development starts; at certain value increase a new cut is taken off the top, that 3% goes back to revenue stream, again at 10%, divided in accordance to the existing tax base for the area. (Division of property taxes.)

The costs are not included, and greatest costs appear to be associated with the ConWay area. Not clear how we arrive at those public costs for the whole area, or what projects are needed. Question as to whether the ConWay area is blighted. Loose definition, includes what we think is blight (run down abandoned homes) to disproportionate land value, many parking lots, and lack of public service.

Is ConWay blighted? Does it need money? Pinger–would ConWay embark on development without URA funds? Tried to raise the question that the area described in the URA area has had about a dozen proposed prior to consideration of URA, are they now stalled because of the possibility of URA $? In the old days only areas without hope of any development were the recipients of URA funds.

Genasci–how would we assess this?

Welch–isn’t the question to ask what kind of development would we get without URA, and impact on neighborhood vs. if there is URA $?

Pinger–the eval committee needs to look at what happens if we allow districts to expire and put property back on the tax rolls? Only a small portion of property that has gone into UR has come out of it (most are renewed.)

Revenue sharing: the excesses above the trigger points are released.
Bradley–also under review is how URA $ can benefit school districts. Pinger–in old days they were considered a separate taxing authority and exempt from URA funding.

Bradley–role of NAs: representation on Mayoral Steering Committee (will be Juliet) Alan Beard will be rep for Goose Hollow Foothills League.

Pinger–was involved in formation of Pearl URA. Development was underway privately before this, and there was a question to the NA whether they wanted to do this or not, was the first URA with a real residential constituency. Now the areas under consideration are different.
Bradley– Do we want the money is a simple question, but if we had a bucket of money, what would we want? Green Streets, Vaughn/I-405, Community Center/Park. Who wants to see a streetcar go down 18th-19th?

Welch–a streetcar to an off-ramp?

Pinger–Juliet as the NA rep needs good direction and we all need to be well informed to ask good questions. Suggests round table meetings about this, go to meetings and inform ourselves better.

Vrilakas–set up the starting point as “if there is a URA…” so we don’t debate that part in developing a plan for what to do if it does happen.

Bradley–Goose Hollow has already decided that they are in favor of the URA. They want to make Goose Hollow into a Town Center.

We will devote some meetings to general discussion of URA’s and some ‘if-then’ proposals.

Planning Minutes – 04/23/09

NWDA Planning Cte
April 23, 2009

John Bradley, Bill Welch, Don Genasci, Ron Walters, Steve Pinger, Noel Johnson, Juliet Hyams, Stephen Metzler Allan Classen, Lee Stapleton,

Green Streets–Metzler There’s a walk tomorrow at 26th & Pettygrove, “T” intersection with Linda Dobson from BES. Issues are school busses, Swifts event, end of green street.
Will invite to come to Planning Committee (next week.)
Stapleton notes that there was a re-do of one area with swales since school bus stop wasn’t safe for students.

Metzler–We’re hoping we can work with the Pearl to have what they’re working on apply to our side of the freeway, should talk with Patty Gardner.
Has been asked to do display board of the Pettygrove layout. Will use the hardboard version of Bramlett’s.

Planting plan is apparently in the works.

Pinger–should we update the guidelines we had a year ago to bring the work on the sections since that time up to date.

**Mark to send out latest set of Greenstreet plans to the committee.

Bradley–Pettygrove is on Platinum Bicycle Master Plan as Bike Boulevard. 3 other major categories, Boulevard is regular street. Other designations are elevated bikeway (3 or 4 inches, then another 2 inches up to the sidewalk), and a separate bike lane with an island dividing it from the main ROW. Do either of these models work for the lower section of Pettygrove.

Pinger–there isn’t much room, and the idea is to blur the hierarchy of modes. A Bike Boulevard does this, and a green street is an implementation of this.

Johnson–Portland has wide range of bicyclist types. The faster folks avoid these areas, prefer to ride on the road. I think there are additional safety concerns when cyclists not on the road.

Genasci–there may be one difference, as Carlson’s been talking about, with a festival street where the sidewalk is flush into the street.

Bradley–Hyams and I went to see Commissioner Saltzman, got zero information and he listened politely. I did mention (to blank looks) the form-based zoning. I’d like to ask if we think this is appropriate for the Conway area, and does anyone know of a small online document that describes this to a T? There are some ‘bibles’ on this, $100 tomes… there’s nationally certified site.

Metzler–Joe Zehnder seemed resistant to the idea “we’ll do this at the end”.

Genasci–this is the next logical step, we’ve been looking at heights.
This is taking what you want, modeling it to test it, make decisions about types of buildings (glass? etc.) and can write what you want into code. Code now is general, but architects feel it’s proscriptive. We can make decisions as a community or city staff as development occurs.

Bradley–the architects don’t like that it’s proscriptive, but also complain there’s no surety. This will give surety. Form based code is less usage driven, you put up the box, market drives occupancy.

Johnson–suggests that form-based code should be informed by fundamentals on the development side. e.g. parking stall minimums, drive aisles equal the full parking tray. This is 60’ and can run into problems with 100’ blocks in Portland. Not to resist form based code, but needs to be economically efficient.
Genasci–requires a lot more planning. Parking, shared parking, put into the ground before buildings are built–done collectively–while not tied specifically with form based code work with that model well. Public realm is the result of what’s built, can look to the ideal public realm in the planning. Pinger–this is the key, flips the old model of building the structures and what’s left is the public realm. 20 years ago Portland moved away from prescriptive zoning codes to form-based codes. The design community will be driven nuts either way. Dangers with proscriptive codes.
In most localities this is the norm, but you never get the results you want. Even Portland’s more enlightened code is a pain to work with, and still misses some huge issues, such as height of ground story.

Genasci–there does need to be developer input, not just represent the values of the city.

Welch–one of the real problems is the real estate values; form-based implies that somebody’s blessed and somebody isn’t.

Genasci–not just a function of density. Another set of 8-floor max buildings used the land more densely than the podium/tower model. Building type can support the street.
Mansard did the project now called Place Vendome, built complete facades, and you bought the bays and built houses behind that.

Bradley–Conway is an ideal area to try this, public informing the built. This could be done easily by the city, exceptions are allowed so long as they are accepted by the public.

Genasci–there are numerous specific examples in California (worst is Seaside ‘disneyland with houses’) but there are many more.

Johnson–worked on this type, density was in the center, there was an urban plaza. It was a local attempt at form-focused code. FFA started it. Process was not ideal, the actual code kept getting delayed while the development moved forward and the code had to respond to the development–plus the insecurity was a real problem. Wilsonville’s center area is now under this code. This applied overlay to PUD zoning.

Pinger–when Portland shifted zoning style, with overlays EXD, etc. there was the idea that there was room to negotiate good design.

Johnson– for example, Mississippi 188 unit $40 million project went through Type II but not to design commission, and site plan didn’t work well.

Genasci–it’s the edge of the Conway property, the infill component that we’ll have to decide how it fits. At the same time, if the neighborhood will be represented in the form-based code how do you work that into the transition to the existing neighborhood? Could be solved, but as part of the larger development (not separate just because it’s another owner’s piece of property. They’d have to agree.)

Bradley–I’d like it to be more proscriptive, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Metzler–there area also carrots, like LEED certification, some points earned here meet some of our desired design concepts.
Bradley–I’d like to get away from the bonus concept.

Pinger–there are advantages, incentive for things you want.

Bradley–because there are few centers, hard to organize businesses locations.

Pinger–the Pearl is collection of buildings, not a formulation of public space, which is the opposite of what we want to do here.

Genasci–Paris is one building type; London is too. Not necessarily monotonous.

Pinger–Conway dismisses the low level as blocky, but to dismiss this would be to dismiss Paris.

Johnson–our strength is economic. Pearl has changed from 100’ to 60’ because you need double-loaded buildings as people can only afford smaller units. 5 years ago, 80’ depth of mass, now 60’. Office 50’, call center 100’.

Genasci–depth of building can be flexible if we work with the public realm first. Johnson–John Carroll did big buildings, now the form has changed to L-shaped, as plate width shrunk, to fill the site.

Stapleton–John mentioned there’s no real center to the Pearl, driven by requirement for ground floor retail space. Might be better if those businesses were to service that building, or not in every building.

Walters–doesn’t this emphasize that form-based has these factored in.

Welch–aren’t you talking about form-based for the public areas? Yes.

Genasci–there are european examples where what was build behind the public face was very flexible.

Pinger–what is the problem that form based code is trying to solve?

Bradley–how the public realm ends up looking, curing this. Talking volume, here.
Pinger–could you apply a form-based code overlay to the existing NW District Plan, extend that work a couple of notches.

Genasci–since that work represents the neighborhood’s desired character, this seems a good place to start. There’s a lot of detail in there about how buildings should look.

Walters–what’s the status of our view of the NW District Plan?

Bradley–I haven’t brought that up for a vote, as I’m still reading through the 1977 plan and the Transition zoning plan.

Planning Minutes – 04/09/09

NWDA Planning Cte 04 09 2009

John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Stephen Metzler, Steve Pinger, Ron Walters, Noel Johnson, Bill Welch, Kim Carlson, Lee Stapleton, Allan Classen

Type II Garage on 26th at 2584 NW Savier, R2 zone, adjustment. Requests side and rear setback changes. Side to 0’, entrance (18’ required) to 0’.

Bradley–my concern, plus a call from a neighbor with same, is that this is ‘kid ground zero’ lots of kids walk to and from Chapman, and school down at Friendly House. Concerned about safety, whether when backing out of garage, would kids be seen?

Geno Salimena, Kate Levine
Salimena–when looking for location for garage, led to this place to preserve outside of house, keep nice back yard, utilize existing parking pad. Traffic issue is our one weakness; responds that not out of context, many other garages with similar siting for garage entrances, within one to three block radius.

Bradley–no comments on side setback, but does feel while there are similar garages, when he looked early one day last week there were many kids on the street. Why can’t you pull this back for safety’s sake? Salimena, Kate–currently a 6’ hedge and fence that already extend to the sidewalk and a 4.5’ fence on the other side, so visibility wouldn’t be affected, already need to take precautions. Pinger–tends to agree. What does Bradley think a safe proposal would be.
Carlson–safety is a huge issue in this neighborhood, shouldn’t support zero setback; should have enough setback that when you are out of the garage you can see pedestrians on the street. A hedge is not the same as a permanent structure. With nothing on the pad now, it’s not good but a garage would make it permanent. Having a nice back yard is not a good reason.

Pinger–not setting the face of the structure back is not necessarily safer.

Johnson–not fair for us to say no without proposing what is safe. Looking at 10’ setback for car, probably. This is a big chunk of a small urban lot. Motion sensor light over the garage to indicate either car or pedestrian movement.

Vrilakas–doors open? Salimena–up and over.

Vrilakas–seems like you won’t see anything backing out, so even a few feet would allow the kids to see the car.

Salimena–already back 1’.

Genasci–agrees with Vrilakas, if you go back another foot or two would add up to 5 or 6 feet, a lot of car sticking out and doesn’t compromise the back garden.

Welch–we started the conversation on 0’ lot line, now we here it’s 3’ off lot line: what’s the difference? What’s the city going to say–get off it, NW? Doesn’t think anyone will be flattened. Bradley/Walters–original purpose of setback is in part safety.

Bradley–we need to approve, approve with conditions, or reject. Granting adjustment equals or betters the purpose of the regulation, cumulative effect compatible with zone.
Walters–it may be one garage; either we don’t have an objection to this type of garage and everyone gets treated the same way, or we don’t. Otherwise this will continue. Larger than this one garage. Is the setback a bad rule? Vrilakas–understands philosophy, but it’s an old neighborhood and we do case by case.
Genasci–moves support with considerations, move the garage move back additional 2’ from property line which is 5’ from the sidewalk. Vrilakas–seconds.

Metzler–tree there, what is it? Salimena–kusura (?) 5” caliper/20’ Effect of moving garage cuts into existing built patio, impedes access to neighbors garage at four-plex.

Genasci–if you made a 20’ rather than a 22’ garage you’d have no loss. Accommodates reasonably sized car.

Pinger–this would allow the additional 2’ allows the butt of the car to be seen (5’ better than 2’)

Carlson–the driver would need to make eye contact with pedestrians, which this doesn’t do.

Vrilakas–what about a window?
Salimena–we need a fire rated wall there, so can’t do windows.

Bradley–calls for the vote.
Motion defeated. Alternative?

Johnson–moves acceptance. They know our concerns, let them figure out motion sensor light or shortening the building. Pinger seconds.

Owner (Kate) I am sensitive to pedestrian issues, I don’t drive. My spouse is also. Hedge would still block visual contact with sidewalk: we’d be happy to take out a segment of the hedge to make for better safety.
Bradley–calls for vote. Motion fails. With permission, will write a letter that we’re at an impasse, due to safety concerns.

Genasci–has brought in students, showing proposals for buildings in the Transition area.
Kelly Hobstetter, Robert Melvin, Lauren Joyner, Robin Best

Planning Minutes – 04/02/09

NWDA Planning Cte 04 02 2009

John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Greg Theisen, Ron Walters, Bill Welch, Steve Pinger, Brian Bramlett, Juliet Hyams, Allan Classen, Lee Stapleton, Jason Wallace, Joshua Powell, met Don and got interested.

Bradley–2584 NW Savier, R2 zone; side yard garage, doesn’t meet setback requirements. Request setback adjustments. Approval criteria as usual in this zone.

Went to look, there is an existing garage just to the south of this, a masonry wall that’s the back of the garage for adjoining multiplex. Parking pad currently there. One of my concerns is not with the side setback, but the front setback. Kid Ground Zero. Seven kids went along the street–this is located between the park and Friendly House and the Market. Safety concerns, especially with short setback and backing out.

Vrilakas–why 22 feet deep? Genasci–that’s about right. Bradley–current parking pad goes back 22 feet with a scallop out for a tree (that will likely need to be removed.)

Genasci–would a window help?

Bradley–I’d like them to pull the whole thing back. I also got a call from a neighbor with these safety concerns. Welch–sees the existing garage being used as illegal residence.

Stapleton–concerns about parking across the sidewalk.

Theisen–when they’re right on the street this isn’t a problem, but when there’s enough room to try to park without getting into the street.

Applicant didn’t show, called; he wants to come next week.

Discussion of Proposed Permit Consolidation. Committee by acclamation approves a letter noting concerns about how to implement one-stop permitting, mechanisms in place not yet implemented, and the appropriateness of placing another bureau’s representative in the control of the permitting bureau.

Pinger–re: Central Portland Plan reads letter of concern from person in Elliott neighborhood, suggests a broader group of neighborhoods & expresses concerns about the process.

Walters–at transportation cte Sheehan said we’re operating without the NW District Plan, due to the remand.

Bradley–LUBA just ruled on appeal of garage

Pinger–they are saying the NWDP has no standing, but the NW Plan District ordinance does.
This would leave us with the 1977 plan.

Call city attorney to find out they’re take on the legality of the NWDP & the NW Plan District.
Through Amanda Fritz, Brian Sheehan.
Can ask NWDA’s attorney his take on this. Hyams says he said the bad thing was it all go thrown out, waiting for his version in layman’s language.
Stapleton: the city will say the plan is in force except for this decision, where it isn’t.

Next Page »