Planning Minutes – 5/24/12
Planning Committee ‘minutes’ for May 24, 2012 may downloaded by clicking on the link below.
Planning Committee Notes 052412
These notes have been posted to provide the membership and other interested parties with a timely update on the status of two neighborhood matters that have short-term decision deadlines: “The Elms” project at NW 19th and Johnson and the liquor license application for at NW Raleigh and 24th. These notes will be formalized as minutes as soon as the Committee Chair approves them.
Planning Minutes – 5/17/12
Planning Committee minutes for May 17, 2012 are available for download by clicking on the link below:
NWDA Planning Committee Minutes – 051712
Planning Minutes – 5/10/12
On May 10, 2012, the sole agenda item for the Planning Committee was to discuss the redevelopment project on NW Johnson and 19th. The discussion centered on ways to save four 125 year old American elm trees. Meeting minutes are available by clicking on the link below.
NWDA Planning Committee Minutes – 051012
Planning Committee Minutes – 3/29/12
Members Attending: John Bradley (chair), Roger Vrilakas, Ron Walters, Bill Welch, Don Genasci,
Guests Attending: Joan Frederiksen BPS; Allan Classen (NW Examiner)
Call to order: 8:02 am
Motion 1: Support letter to Turtle Island Development for an affordable housing project in the Con-way masterplan.
Don Genasci moves. Roger Vrilakis seconds.
Votes for: Genasci, Vrilakas, Welch
Votes against: None
Motion passes.
Turtle Island Letter
Motion 2: Support NWDA Planning Committee Work Plan for approval by Board
Genasci moves. Walters seconds.
Votes for: Genasci, Vrilakas, Welch, Walters
Votes against: None
Motion passes.
Planning Committee Work plan
Meeting notes:
Bradley–has written a letter in support for Turtle Island Low Income Housing. This is needed today to go to testify tomorrow (reads letter.) Re 20th & Savier Con-way Master Plan siting.
Genasci moves, Vrilakas seconds approval of the letter.
Walters–suggests we clarify that we aren’t supporting the concept, not the details of the project
Bradley–as it will go through Type III later, we don’t need to do this now.
Genasci–the S. Waterfront 6 and 7 story development is awful; we need to sharpen the standards here.
All in favor. Walters abstains. Motion passes.
Bradley–Steve Pinger won’t be here today, he has submitted a reworking of the committee plan.
C. 2. committee strikes this section.
Moves section C to become section A.
Genasci moves, Walters seconds adoption of the plan with these changes.
All in favor. Motion passes.
Frederiksen–Comp Plan update. (Passes out policy framework document, the connection to the Portland Plan; policy expert group list; timeline.)
Bradley–the PEG’s (8 in total) are committees we may want to be on. We just approved this as part of our committee workplan.
Frederiksen–there is an application approval process online now, going on through April 16th or thereabouts. The website is on the handouts.
Looking for folks with experience with current work or past work. We know other people are interested but would like people who have thought about the issues. This includes community members who have been involved, not necessarily professionals.
Groups are planned to be around twelve people, half city staff from bureaus and half from the community–business, neighborhood, non-profits.
The idea is there is a year-long commitment with monthly meetings at the beginning or end of daily working hours. I think that as the groups form there will be a discussion about how often to meet, need to form subcommittees etc.
NWDA is in the ‘inner’ group.
Walters— NWDA is lumped together with “inner” neighborhoods in a donut shape around City Center. Does this make sense?
Welch–I think it makes sense, old houses…
Vrilakas–I think it makes sense, too. We share a number of the issues.
Frederiksen–we’ll be looking at the five neighborhood constructs–e.g. neighborhood centers–and we’ll look to see if there are distinctions and if policy differences are needed.
A residential compatibility topic will not be of interest to some groups but will be to others. It will also depend on who is applying for the groups, and their geography.
This is about the way we look at policy and code.
Vrilakas–unless this is equitably distributed, there will be undue influence. If you’ve designated five areas they should be represented.
Frederiksen–this isn’t the only form of input, staff will look to see if there’s an imbalance in the recommendations.
Bradley–Would it help if we specifically nominated people for these committees.
Frederiksen–that’s internal to you; decide who you’d like to represent you in various areas, and throw your names in the hat.
Walters–how do we assure proper NWDA representation on the PEG’s?
Frederiksen–The idea now is that they will be advisory to staff, and will help shape policy.
There will also be input from the public.
This differs from the Central City 2035 plan, which has been going on for a while and has its quadrant framework. That concept plan will be roughly together this summer and fall, and as the Comp Plan moves along these will be reconciled.
It’s still an open question about whether NW is in the CC 2035 quadrant based on the original draft, or dropped, as in SW. We’ll know more once the budget numbers are available. We’ll know in a month or two. What I’m seeing in South Portland in they won’t do the secondary study area, and the framework for NW is similar.
Genasci–it the planning bureau understands what’s going on at Con-way it will be a densely urban area, and not a main street.
Walters–the whole structure, we’re surrounded by other very different “Portlands”: industrial immediately north; central city to south and east, west neighborhoods to the west; map looks a little like the URA map.
Bradley–there’s a whole set of policies for Central City and these are not applicable to our entire neighborhood. We had the old Central City guidelines march up Burnside, with some good and some bad outcomes. We could get rolled up in the central city and get mugged.
Walters–perhaps we should advocate to not be in it, but does that mean we don’t get investment or attention.
Bradley–it’s illogical that the plans are all tied together, and the city is divided up a certain way, and you go down a tier, and then it’s divided up another way.
Frederiksen–the four quadrants are in the CC bubble, the others for the Comp Plan are beyond that, but you are somewhat in both the inner and the outer…
Vrilakas–if the Comp Plan area was extended a few blocks in various directions it would make these more congruent.
Walters–our neighborhood is diverse, heavy industrial at one end and Burnside, Bars and the Timbers at the other, and West Hills single family in the West to Pearl-like development to the East.
Welch–similar development is happening in Mississippi, Belmont, Division street areas. They will effectively have to deal with the same issues we deal with, and though they are a bit later in starting they will.
Frederiksen–the designations are in part to get us out of the one-size-fits-all mindset, to respond to development pressures.
There are other issues that have been worked on in other agencies, such as housing, that will be integrated into the draft.
Bradley–who will be picking the working groups?
Frederiksen–I don’t know, probably s/o from ONI, from the District Coalition group, other agencies.
Has been a web-based outreach, network to those involved in the Portland Plan.
Bradley–asks Genasci to be on the Residential committee.
Frederiksen–PIAC is the Community Involvement Committee for the Comp Plan. It’s mission will expand in this role.
Bradley–Jeanne or Phil might be on the transportation group.
Frederiksen–we have applications from 30 people, will need 36 or more.
Genasci–what about the Neighborhood Centers committee?
Bradley–Walters?
Walters–will consider it.
Bradley–we’ll preselect our official reps as Genasci, Jeanne Harrison or Phil Selinger, and Walters.
Frederiksen–there’s bound to be evolution, we’re looking at September or October for a draft, so only three or four PEG meetings by then. We’ll do outreach in the fall/winter, then a new draft. Expects slippage and morphing.
Will confirm the April 16 deadline.
Welch–thanks Frederiksen for the level of detail on the project.
Frederiksen–obviously it’s policy, we won’t get to everything re implementation until this is done. We have been hashing out the visioned areas for years now, and this needs to fine tune the details. We have six or seven months of the same administration and I hope this can get moving forward.
Welch–how will we ask that this not get redone yet again? Ask the candidates?
Frederiksen–This is policy, I think the bigger conversations based on the political situation will occur in the implementation discussions a year from now.
Bradley–this document contains a lot of social engineering. In a capitalist system how do you implement this kind of work? This is the question to ask.
Vrilakas–given that Portland is legendary for this kind of brainstorming, how are plans listed against reality, evaluated?
Adjourned 8:57
Planning Comm. Minutes – 2/23/12
NWDA Planning Committee Minutes
February 23, 2012
Members Attendees:
John Bradley (Chair), Don Genasci, Roger Vrilakas, Bill Welch, Ron Walters, Steve Pinger
Guests: Allan Classen (NW Examiner); Tom DiChiara (CE John); Tanya March (Safety & Livability Committee)
Call to Order: 8:05 am
Bradley starts meeting with announcements.
Walters provides background on process to date regarding Block 296 proposal.
Tom DiChiara presents overview of Block 296 concept: 29,000 square foot grocery store plus 6-story market-rate apartments with ground-floor retail on NW 21st and NW 22nd. Underground parking for tenants supplemented with existing surface parking for grocery store. Second phase of development could remove or shelter surface parking.
Bradley invites motion to approve masterplan concept for Block 296 subject to approval of entire masterplan and restriction that FAR cannot be transferred off site. Motion modified to include provision to break up building façade on side streets and to include sufficient footings for potential future replacement building.
Pinger moves.
Genasci second.
Discussion of motion.
Votes In favor: Genasci, Pinger, Vrilakis, Walters
Opposed: None
No vote: Welch
Motion passes. Will be forwarded to the Board for Monday, February 27 Board meeting.
Additional discussion.
Meeting adjourned at 9:08 am.
Additional Meeting Notes:
Bradley–announcements: Change of agenda, will be discussing potential grocery store. PBOT & ODOT are meeting on the 29th to discuss the Kittelson report on Con-way traffic–Ron Walters and Phil Selinger will attend.
Bradley–clarifications on Con-way, they are going for a building LEED and a district LEED, which is a comprehensive look at how the area is physically organized.
Genasci–Hyams mentioned that construction uses a lot of older diesel engines, Sharon Genasci spoke with Kevin Downing DEQ expert who is suggesting a 1% budget to refurbish diesel or use different fuels.
Bradley–one part of the LEED by neighborhood rating is based on a variety of mitigations for this sort of thing.
Genasci–we should proscribe the effect, not necessarily the means.
Bradley–Good news, Ed McNamara of Turtle Bay Investments is looking for funding to build low income housing in the Con-way area. A site behind the church is under consideration.
On the 14th Holst Architects will be in to discuss the Lucky Lab development, 20th and Raleigh. A pre-app on March 7th.
DiChiara–also on of my projects, we’ll be in on the 14th.
Bradley–Today, discussing lot 296, the grocery.
Walters-a few weeks ago we saw this for the first time at the Con-way plan committee, we asked for feedback from the Board about general recommendations, heard interest in the grocery store at this location–no motion, just a sense of the room. Thus Con-way reps continued to work on the store, based on the guidance of the board and not opposed to the idea, but nothing to respond to.
The committee–Bradley, Genasci, Pinger and Walters–responded that the draft a few weeks ago was on the right track. Based on the desired timeline for the City and Con-way, to the extent that there are things we would support, we’d like to get it to this group and in front of the board, which meets Monday.
Welch–the procedure should come from conway to the four person group then to planning and then to the board, and not to the board before that.
Bradley–the board looked at it as ‘there might be a grocery store here.’
DiChiara– we’ve been interested in doing a grocery store here, so we’ve developed a scheme to address some of the concerns we’ve heard.
Block 96 has old warehouse Raleigh-Quimby–22nd-21st.
A block building with skylights, structurally in good shape, concrete reinforced built in 50′s, needs new roof, reusable building. As a grocery would be a catalyst for the area.
New roof will be a diaphragm keeping the skylight, will have seismic upgrade.
Have gone through a number of changes of plan as we address comments. Started with big box do the store inside and maybe something in front. Hearing about the density and design goals, now have it 20′ short of back side on 22nd and pulls of back bays of the warehouse. Build six-story new building behind with retail on the corners, rental apartments above, tuck under, housing on top traditionally sized residential building.
On Raleigh modest loading area and auto entry for apartments. See Raleigh as the main approach.
Grade falls across the site, can get on grade at SE corner, 3′ difference to the North. Prominent entrances at the corners.
Moving to 21st, 60′ deep mixed commercial and residential building, 6-story, on the other side of the parking lot, with a parking tray underneath to support the residential buildings. 150 stalls underground, ped connection underground to the rear on Raleigh, parking tray under the East portion of the site under the parking lot and Eastern building.
Genasci–what happens when the grocery store goes away, long term?
DiChiara–we could build on top of the site housing along Quimby, new parking tray about part of existing on the North, encapsulate the site at the 60′ line. Traffic access still interior to the block.
Putting a parking tray under the current building would cost $3 to $4 million, kill the project.
175 residential units, activates all four corners of the block.
Genasci–concerned that preparation for footings is looked at for the eventual replacement of the parking lot.
DiChiara–we are doing that.
Walters–this square footage wouldn’t be allowed under code, a single exception to the 20,000 s.f. limit. That’s one thing they would like support on. This would require approval of the changes at the commission.
DiChiara–currently it’s 36,000 s.f. but we’re taking some off the back, which the grocers also like because 36k is more than they feel is marketable.
The new code lets us go to 75′ and we are at capacity with the adjustments allowed in that code. 16′ ground floors, five above. Woodframe construction works at this level. Type 3b building.
Welch–if this takes almost three years to get the development complete, will the surrounding projects also be moving forward?
DiChiara–we expect the blocks to start building out.
Bradley–work is going on two sites on 23rd, project in the works for 20th.
Welch–wonders about the other markets surviving–Food Front, City Market. Thinks they will.
DiChiara–Whole Foods drove the Brewery Block area developments.
Bradley–invites a motion to approve subject to the approval of the entire plan and with the restriction that FAR cannot be transferred off the site.
Pinger moves
Genasci seconds
Discussion:
Welch–I have complained about this as that it shouldn’t be the first tenant, I like what they are doing but wish it was in the middle of the project.
DiChiara–there will be 500 units of new housing by the time it opens.
Genasci–I’m concerned about the relationship to the two side streets, that the building be open to both Raleigh and Quimby, some interest and openness to the side streets. It’s a suburban situation, though the corner entrances helps a lot.
DiChiara–our expectation is that we have some glass on the sides such as downtown Safeway, Whole Foods. We think Raleigh will be a primary street.
Bradley–Motion is now:
Approve subject to the approval of the entire plan and with the restriction that FAR cannot be transferred off the site, open to the side streets and with footings for future replacement building.
All in favor, Welch not voting.
Pinger–the power point at Con-way was well put together.
Walters–if we have 30 minutes at the Board meeting, there might be four slides about this, the motion would be for the board to approve this one piece.
Bradley–a few minutes left, won’t get to the work plan.
The park is still up in the air, Portland Parks Bureau said they didn’t like the idea of two separate parks, one green, on a square. Now they are looking the entire block with the truck repair shop would be devoted to a park and a square. One of the elements we’re looking at is that the square is enclosed in some way, not a squark… One building on the east side and another on the north side, small glass pavilion on the corner. Hardscaped to the west, green to the east.
Quimby reopened but not a public street. Would look like a street, would function as a festival street. A private street, not maintained by the city.
The parks will be maintained by the city.
Walters–Essentially moves the green park to the west of the planned square.
Bradley–there will be another small private but open to the public square at the north end of 21st and possibly another near the church.
Walters–the most detail we have we got two days ago, John Spencer’s memorandum. We should circulate this. We would like it to start sooner rather than later.
Genasci–the adjacent development site may also contribute to the maintenance and not have to rely entirely on the city.
Bradley–dimensions somewhere between 135′ or 145′ x 145′ open area on the square.
SDC’s still need to be put to paper, enough to kick-start the design, and PP&R will go through their procedure for park planning with some provisos for the park and square sections.
Vrilakas–has anyone asked how much someone would pay to have a park per annum?
Bradley–not that I know of.
Welch–I’m hoping we could take a vote on the idea we discussed last week, to encourage the board to attach with their parking plan that we reevaluate the parking limits and requirements for RH and EXd.
Bradley–can we do this next week?
Walters–almost none of that has anything to do with off-street parking.
Welch–in the 1996 set up for the plan paying for off-street parking is allowed as part of the use for funds from a meter district.
That’s how we got into the parking problem was because of the zoning.
Bradley–next week we’ll discuss this; do we want it? Where should it apply? How do we get there.
Next week: half the time on this, half on workplan.
PGE Parking Mtg. – 1/20
NWDA PGE Parking Meeting
Planning, Transportation and Parking Committees – Jan. 20, 2011
Summary: This meeting sought general comments for the proposed parking plan for the area close to PGE Park. The key feedback from the neighborhood is that the permit area needs to be expanded especially northward and eastward, more details are needed concerning the level of enforcement, a one hour limit should be enforced, will there be a notification, and the city needs to know how many permits to issue per household. - John Bradley
Meeting Notes:
Attendance (not necessarily complete):
Committee Members – John Bradley, Ron Walters, Gustavo Cruz, Bill Welch, Greg Theisen, Steve Pinger, Juliet Hyams
Neighbors— Eddie Laberge; NWDA: Jim Kennett, Mary Ann Pastene (NWDA Board Member), Jim Pastene, Pete Colt, Nicole Comer, Fran Goldstein, Brian S. Terrett, Tony Cadena (NWDA Board member), Dan Anderson (NW Parking Advisory Committee member), Joy Anderson, Lee Stapleton; Goose Hollow: Tom Turner, Jerry Powell, Bob Arkes
Press—Allan Classen, NW Examiner; Mollie Hottle, Oregonian; Tiffany Stubbert, Willamette Week; Tim Gordon, KOIN-TV; several other TV crews
Guests—David Logsdon, Spectator Facilities Manager, City of Portland; Ramon Corona, Ellis McCoy, Bill Hoffman, Portland Bureau of Transportation; Ken Puckett, PGE Park
8:00 a.m.
Ron Walters–Joint meeting of NWDA Planning, Transportation and Ad Hoc Parking Committees. To look at ideas for managing parking this coming Timbers season while the city is working on a long term solution.
One of the goals is based on input from the website and at this meeting if we can get something near a consensus so NWDA can speak with a unified voice when dealing with the city.
John Bradley–about a decade ago PGE Park was remodeled with a transportation plan and good neighbor agreement. With the new remodel and different type of events there are some potential problems. Ken Puckett, Sr. VP OPs PGE Park. Our CTMP we worked on with neighborhoods is working quite well. 10th & Yamhill parking spots, negotiations for passes from Tri-Met for season ticket holders. The parking comes with a one-stop trimet pass. Also working with Gary at Stadium Parking for club seat holders, one place per four tickets.
We went from many baseball games and 16 soccer matches to an 18 mostly weekend game season. Ramon Corona. Ellis McCoy Parking Manager. Installed Zone L for PGE Park in the earlier arrangement, working on replacement, ready to do what we can. David Logsdon oversees stadium regulation.
Theisen–Zone L is gone?
Corona–temporarily, it’s coming back up with some boundary changes.
Puckett–bike parking, if people walk donate money to community programs.
The first year a ticket was a Tri-Met Pass, went a way pretty quickly.
Logsdon–it was expensive, the partners at the stadium went into default and the city wasn’t receiving the funds.
The average transit ridership for PGE was around 40 to 45%, is now around 35%. About 6000 patrons who have opted for taking mass transit. Expect about 40% with new setup.
Pete Colt–thanks Ken Puckett and PGE Park for being proactive, for the Good Neighbor Agreement. Thanks parking enforcement for the work where zone K and L meet.
Walters– Presumably the philosophy is to encourage fans to take Mass Transportation? Discourage driving? If you drive your car, we’ll help find a place but don’t expect to drive and park for free, on the street, near the stadium. We’re trying to discourage people from parking on the street.
Puckett–we offer parking discount to season ticket holders, but also one-time rate breaks for other attendees.
Walters–the Park and the Timbers are doing what’s logical to help reduce congestion near the park? Key issues are the duration in the parking permit area, what will boundaries be, and how will it be enforced.
McCoy–I’ll let Ramon describe more, but we do have some concerns about the northern boundary, and there’s short time to work on some issues.
Corona–before we had a 1,2, and 3 hour set of boundaries. I went to the end of the old 2-hour, at Irving, and up to Zone K and Burnside. This is an idea for your comment.
? Zone K–some sections are very close to PGE Park. What was the problem or the issue, as someone who lives in Zone K I’d like to see at least the eastern section in the parking enforcement area, would like to see it extended to 405.
Corona–there is a committee of residents in zone K who had previously decided that there wasn’t a problem with enforcement, clearer signage was needed. I’d recommend going back to the committee and asking to extend K to the freeway.
Joy Anderson–lives on Flanders, the program is working reasonably well, would like to see more documentation of residents in the issuing of permits.
Stapleton–Some larger crowds at events affect parking over a wider area outside the target area. Could create some traffic movement controls to push people into the areas you want. Could put barricades on Burnside on northbound neighborhood streets, adding some turn lanes at target areas. For example, instead of the jog at 19th, a left turn. The biggest problem is people running around the block several times and then going further north or to NW 23rd. Dan Anderson–boundaries of the L-Zone saturation contour extends much further north than the proposed boundary. Previous studies done with PFE a decade ago suggest the northern boundary belongs north of Lovejoy and should be extended east and west of proposed boundaries. Parking three blocks from the stadium for free is a hell of a deal compared to parking ten blocks away for cheap.
Corona–Agreed. Zone L was meant to be temporary, to extend it north of Lovejoy would require resources to hire, put signs in place, probably six months to ramp up. Could perhaps another block or two north, but as a temporary solution it will be too expensive to go further. These are cost for service programs if permanent, the
The previous program was paid for by the baseball team.
Puckett–the park hasn’t paid for the programs, only some to PBOT for enforcement.
Tony Cadena–At 18th and Davis Enforcement is lax to non-existent; as a financial person I can’t imagine ticket prices couldn’t pay for this.
McCoy–we do assume that parking is self-financing, but because of confusing signage at Zone L the tickets were thrown out. It’s a challenge to craft that language.
Bradley–what will the enforcement be? Saturation?
Theisen–and what is the program to assess conditions as they were, are, and will be? What is the impact area?
McCoy–re data collection: we have done a lot of occupancy data collection in the area, and state of Oregon will also be doing data collection to supplement this, running over a period of time. I’m not the enforcement manager, but I do know they plan heavy enforcement the first few games, then back off. They can respond effectively based on demand, and have done so with Goose Hollow when their transportation committee requests it.
Theisen–ten years ago there were measurements, I’m not understanding the current program.
McCoy–the Oregon data collection is in support of the NW Parking Plan, part of that is looking at the impacts of PGE Park. Zone L: we’ll have an average of two games a month, on weekends, two hours long. Program will go all week, providing a level of protection beyond just the frequency of the games. We’ll do our best to assess and are willing to make adjustments to the new Zone L.
Colt–16th & 20th place Burnside to Glisan–it’s what happens after they park: syringes, litter, broken plants. In LA there as signs saying “you are entering a restricted parking zone” requires permits, parking is enforced and towing is done. (All night.)
Extend Zone L to the edges of the neighborhood, motivate people to take the streetcar.
Stapleton–there are a lot of businesses that can benefit from the nice crowds, by making it too restrictive to the event people don’t stay in the neighborhood. Have lots north of Lovejoy with shuttles, encouraging people to stay in the neighborhood and increase business to the restaurants and merchants.
The unoccupied small lots could be facilitated with temporary permits, lower rates.
Puckett–Stadium Parking captures quite a few lots.
Stapleton–there are doctors offices, others, who aren’t currently legally allowed to share the parking.
Walters–in Goose Hollow the prevailing time is one hour–ninety minutes. For a game a two hour spot seems like it’s worth the risk; making the time the same on both sides of Burnside would be better. Corona–we were considering a one-hour limit.
Jerry Powell–Planning Committee at Goose Hollow thinks this is a good idea, before the board currently.
Fran Goldstein–could you do a shuttle on 18th-19th? Fareless zone?
Logsdon–fareless zones are not of interest to Tri-Met unless they are well compensated.
RE a shuttle: in the Rose Quarter there was initially a shuttle but it lapsed due to lack of patronage; it turned out to be time consuming and expensive for the patrons.
Colt–could add a PGE Park announcement on the Streetcar so people debark and walk down our mainstreet.
Bradley–Straw Poll—is the group generally in favor of:
Need to change boundaries? Yes.
Increase Northernmost Boundary and Easternmost Boundary? Yes
Enforcement– would like to see the details of the mitigation efforts: how many people, how are the efforts organized, residency tests? Yes.
One-hour parking? (Soccer games 90 minutes plus 20 halftime) Yes (some businesses might object.) Colt—there are no restaurants in the area adjacent to Burnside near stadium.
Hyams–notification of households, apartments is needed.
Corona–every year we put up the signs in April and remove in October. It’s a lot of mail.
Bradley–residents paying for parking is part of a long term solution, this is supposed to be temporary.
? Has parking at ConWay been considered? It’s within walking distance, it’s not fair to assume people will commit to parking that’s provided, and will still park in the neighborhood. The parking sign worries me, I understand them but I’ve lived in the Zone K area for ten years: don’t want judges to throw out the signs.
Corona–after first year we changed the signs and it’s working better.
McCoy–NWDA can get back to me with these comments, we’ll look at funding, a potential schedule, and make a proposal. I have concerns about funding, but will try. We have time to put in a new program but will need the information as soon as possible.
Corona–you should also look at whether you want to limit residential permits to Zone L. These are currently not restricted.
Stapleton—suggests increase prices for second, subsequent permits.
Corona–it’s currently free.
McCoy–with our normal residential we have a similar mechanism.
Corona–we charge $45 per year for other permits, the free ones are pure cost for enforcement.
Adjourn 9:04
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.
