Board Minutes – September 22, 2008

Comments Off on Board Minutes – September 22, 2008

Members Present: Rachel Cody, Dan Anderson, Tavo Cruz, Juliet Hyams, Bud Clark, Perry Heitmann, Sharon Kelly, Noel Johnson, Stephen Metzler, Steve Pinger, Scott Siebert, Ron Walters

Members Not Present:
Greg Aldrich (excused)
Brian Bramlett
Kim Carlson (excused)
Jeff Love (excused)

Call to Order
• at 600p by President Juliet Hyams

Call of the Roster
• as noted above
• also in attendance: Sandy Stapleton; Lee Stapleton; Pete Colt; Steven Sykes; Jean Senechal Biggs; Jeanne Harrison; Brian Sheehan; Wayne Clark; Gina Cole; John Bradley

Prior Board Minutes
• approval of August Board minutes will be continued to the September meeting.

Old Business
• NW Community Center tax-exempt status; unresolved.
• Pettygrove Green Street status;
• Urban Renewal amendments;
• Irving St. Garage HLC decision; appealed to City Council, see 05.05 below:
• Committee / Board relationship, duties;
• NPD remand;

President’s Report; Juliet Hyams:
• Board vacancies;
Motion 05.05A, P. Heitman: approve seating Scott Seibert and Noel Johnson, who represent the two next highest vote recipients from the May election, to fill the two vacancies, J. Hyams second;
Motion 05.05A approved;
• NHBA liaison;
Motion 05.05B, T. Cruz: approve Ron Walters as liaison to the Nob Hill Business Association, S. Metzler second;
Motion 05.05B approved;
I-405 TAC representative;
Motion 05.05C, T. Cruz: approve Scott Seibert and Maureen Bradley as I-405 TAC representatives, S. Metzler second;
Motion 05.05C approved;
Slabtown Festival
• ~$400 income from the NWDA booth;
Irving St. Garage HLC decision;
• appealed to City Council;
• CoP non-responsive to request for postponement;
• S. Pinger: testify to setback and zoning issues, raise question of “takings”;
• S. Metzler: change in the political environment re: energy, transportation;
• T. Cruz: raise the broader issue of the TMP, and recognize the HLC’s “minority opinion”;
• J. Bradley: establish record for review, de novo proceeding;
• L. Stapleton: verbal testimony should hit emotional issues, negatives for business;
• S. Seibert: advise of prior mediation process, under-utilization of existing structured parking;
• L. Stapleton: likelihood of garage providing parking capacity for future large retailers at adjacent sites;
• R. Walters: the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria of approval is being met.

Treasurer’s Report; Bud Clark:
• Fiscal EoY Jun 30 financial report;
• Attached P & L, Balance Sheet

Health and Environment Committee Report; Sharon Genasci:
• no report;

Public Safety Report; Pete Colt:

• post “no-cruising” signs;
• wall at car wash on Burnside needs patrolling;
• community policing;
• “Neighborhood Watch”

Parks and Recreation Committee Report; Pete Colt:
• Couch Park update;
• proposal to change close of Couch Park to 1000p from 1200a;
• lighting along Everett at 19th;
• proposal for dog park at 15th and Couch

Transportation Committee Report; Kim Carlson:
• Streetcar System Plan, NW District Working Group;
• SSP SAC requesting written comments from neighborhood associations and neighborhood coalitions;
• provide recommended corridors;
• address negative impacts;
• connections to city as a whole;
• Eastside Loop route recommendation;
Motion 05.10A, S. Seibert: send letter in support of the Northrup Loop alternative routing of the Eastside Loop, S. Pinger second;
Motion 05.10A approved;
• North Pearl District Plan
Motion 05.10B, S. Seibert: approve position of NWDA testimony to challenge the NPDP’s transportation analysis assumptions of a 40% transit mode split as credible, ??? second;
Motion 05.10B approved;
NW 23rd Ave. repairs
• Jean Biggs, provided 3 exhibits:
• rebuilding to take place in travel lanes only;
• curb extension and ramps will be created or rebuilt in some locations;
• scope and schedule developed to lessen impacts on 23rd Ave merchants;
• project schedule calls for work on Mon – Fri and Sundays;
• S. Seibert: funding $6m federal, $1.3m CoP;
• J. Bradley: questions whether Sunday work would be acceptable to neighbors;
• N. Johnson: review means and methods later;
• J. Biggs: schedule as proposed would require approval of noise variance;
Motion 05.10C, S. Pinger: support the NW 23rd Ave. repair work program, but only with further review of the proposed work schedule and alternatives ie: five 10 hour workdays instead of six eight hour workdays, R. Walters second;
Motion 05.10C approved;

Planning Committee Report; John Bradley:
• Con-way redevelopment;
• NDP is the basis for discussions with Con-way regarding development plans;
• CE John 23rd and Lovejoy mixed use;
• project on hold;
• GSH MOB and Parking Structure;
• project on hold until bond market stabilizes;
• subject to development agreement between GSH and NWDA;
• Central Portland Plan;
• portions of NWDA may be considered as a part of the Central Portland Plan study area and as potential urban renewal district;
• North Pear District Plan;
• NWDA to provide testimony regarding:
• opposition to granting of height bonus at NW parcel of Terminal 1;
• provision of plan, process and funding for proposed park in exchange for granting of height bonus at SE parcel of Terminal 1;
• request for independent verification of assumptions used in transportation analysis;
• re-ratification of John Bradley as NWDA Planning Committee chair;
• Motion 05.11, ???: approve re-ratification of John Bradley as NWDA Planning Committee chair, ??? second;
Motion 05.11 approved

Staff Report
• no report
• no announcements
• adjourned at 800p;

Motions Summary:
MOTION 05.05A approve seating Scott Seibert and Noel Johnson, who represent the two next highest vote recipients from the May election, to fill the two vacancies (moved by Perry Heitmann; seconded by Juliet Hyams)

MOTION 05.05B approve Ron Walters as liaison to the Nob Hill Business Association (moved by Tavo Cruz; seconded by Steven Metzler).

MOTION 05.05C approve Scott Seibert and Maureen Bradley as I-405 TAC representatives (moved by Tavo Cruz; Seconded by Steven Metzler).

MOTION 05.10A send letter in support of the Northrup Loop alternative routing of the Eastside Loop (moved by Scott Siebert; seconded by Steve Pinger).

MOTION 05.10B approve position of NWDA testimony to challenge the NPDP’s transportation analysis assumptions of a 40% transit mode split as credible (moved by Scott Siebert; seconded by unknown).

MOTION 05.10C support the NW 23rd Ave. repair work program, but only with further review of the proposed work schedule and alternatives ie: five 10 hour workdays instead of six eight hour workdays (moved by Steve Pinger, Seconded by Ron Walters).

Voting Summary:

MOTIONs 05.05B, 05.05C, 05.10A, 05.10B, 05.10C were all approved unanimously.

MOTION 05.05A was approved by a vote of 11-1. Sharon Kelly voted against the Motion.

Planning Minutes – 10/23/08

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 10/23/08

NWDA Planning Cte 10 23 08

John Bradley, Bill Welch, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Ron Walters, Brian Bramlett, Stephen Metzler, Kevin Kenaga, Steve Pinger, Juliet Hyams, Greg Theisen, Allan Classen.

Bradley–City Wide Land Use meeting, one will feature BDS Resource, Rebecca Esau, Mike Hayakawa. Trees. Dec. 1 Mayor-elect Adams. There was a meeting with ConWay. Pinger, ‘we’re sworn to secrecy ; ) Hyams–Steve made them squirm Walters–besides being cordial, they want what you would expect. We suggested they take district plan and see if would give them what. They said they will need more FAR and height, but don’t know how much. It did include streetcar, didn’t feel railroaded, yet. Looked attractive but didn’t adhere to the plan. Competing visions here, don’t just say you did the math, let’s look at what you pencilled out and see what didn’t work. Pinger–I think they were fairly open and cordial, but a strong tendency to present what was presented before. We tried to press them on how does this fit into legislative and regulatory environment now and as predicted into next 10 years, Portland Plan, Central City, and certainly NWDP. What are they assuming or not re URA, they coughed up they are assuming one. Lot of background activity re these; when will these become public and give a decision point? Other elephant in the room was the economic modeling. If assume no basis in property cost anything would. At $200 sf few things would pencil out, at $100 quite a few things would. We were trying to push back on their pronouncement that 3:1 wouldn’t work, we said yes, there’s one across the street that pencils out. But for everyone’s sake we need to look at what that would look at. Theisen–this pencilling has a lot to do with parking. Bramlett–the argument was around to meet the aspirations of the NWDP, but for funding the URA was key. Theisen–there’s a difference between underground and above ground/structured parking costs, and near the freeway the latter would work. Pinger–we need to get more cards on the table regarding what other schemes are on the table. Craig Boretz’s view was much more consistent with the plan earlier this year. As a result of the discussion, they intended to have the meeting last week, then a series beginning in January going through amenities etc. We helped them come to the conclusion, let’s meet in November, and again in December for a full mutual understanding of regulatory framework and development options. Then go on the following steps. Theisen–was anyone from the city there? Concerned they are isolating themselves not looking at the whole transition area. Brian Sheehan, Joe Zehnder were there, briefly. Intend to. Walters–Zehnder said something re this adheres to spirit of the plan lets not get hung up on coding. Struck me as odd, plan has vision but also clear structure and code. Bramlett–claim was a lot of aspirational material wasn’t codified into the plan, we have a chance now. Bradley–Zehnder’s context is they’re behind on Portland Plan, and not any indication they’re jumping in with both feet. City Wide planning meeting hasn’t had more floated to them. Sieber–they delayed to set up a public committee. Bradley–The city’s involvement in the ConWay task force is informational, not guiding it, just there. Roger–isn’t this the largest parcel to be developed in 97209–97210, wouldn’t we want the city to get fired up about this. Pinger–tried to express this, said to us this was a big deal. Theisen–from my experience, if you want to do a plan for your piece of property, hospital, golf course, you pay for it if on your own, if there’s a threshold, size wise, you ask the city to make it a public planning process and get city and neighborhood buy in. That’s what the Port is doing now, paying for a planning process for Hayden Island which the city will run. Hyams–they wanted us to have five reps all the way through, same people, but agreed that she could bring in some experts. Theisen–process structure? Involvement? Hyams–still the same five people sitting at the table and talking, others at sidelines and she could rotate out. No charter. Elaine Cogan was facilitating. Added meetings. Bramlett–rep from Lane Powell was the scribe (legal firm.) Genasci–some students are doing design work, maybe they could rotate in and out. Will be working on this for 2 terms, January until end of school year, available for 3D work and will do individual projects in that area. Urban design for six weeks, pick a place to do particular kinds of buildings. Would like them to get the feel of public process. Walters–once we understand what plan A, that fit’s NWDP looks like, that would be an option to start working from, instead of competing visions, build from this. Competing visions for the base level. Whoever is going to weigh in ‘what’s wrong with this one’. Theisen–should start with public process, what are existing conditions, then begin to talk about options in relation to existing architecture and the regulatory environment. You shouldn’t care about their first plan. Genasci–one of the first things they could do is interpret the existing plan in 3D. Metzler–existing conditions, what’s there. Vrilakas–this is the largest part of the neighborhood, we’re looking at this like it smells, they don’t smell good to us, we don’t smell good to them, city is out to lunch, and frankly that’s sad. They shouldn’t be in a great rush in the midst of a recession, with such a low basis, and if they are they’ll do a crummy job. Let’s make more of this than usual. Could do it as competition, and would slow down the process. Otherwise I suspect we’ll get same dreck that’s along 19th. Genasci–would need to write the brief for a competition, and need to go through the whole analysis process anyway. Theisen–we have group working on this. Additional strategies: are we meeting with city staff, electeds? Bradley–no. Was told by Zehnder that city would only be observing. Theisen–we should have a message or messages to city staff and electeds about how this works with Portland Plan, etc. Encourages setting a boundary larger than ConWay per se, get more involvement from the city with this. Add someone. Bradley–Tad Savinar. Theisen–there’s the owner of the two or three houses and the lumber yard on Pettygrove. Who own’s Pettygrove industrial buildings where Gym left? The Church. Walters–we’re trying to make it not the usual process the anti-build-it vs. the developer. Would hope to get something that everyone including us would like. Is it Urban renewal. If I were a business person I’d like to be able to go as fast or as slow as they want, our role is to slow them down. They want Master Plan to be able to coordinate a multi-decade process and get started selling some property sooner. Welch–they’re planning a fortune, not an area. Walters–disagrees. They want more surety. Pinger–I think the idea here is that they are packaging entitlements and selling them. They are not the developer. Particularly interested vis a vis us is enhanced private entitlements vs. public entitlements. Genasci–design standards? Not mentioned. Bradley–the key point perhaps is for us to push for what the design standards will be. Theisen–I see Joe Zehnder regularly, what are three things this neighborhood would like to see. Vrilakas–we’re planners. Would like to communicate that this looks like a big deal. Genasci–design standards, based on urban design plan, not proscriptive but what are the implications of our standards? Theisen–out front of the process, etc. Sieber–don’t know the city’s budget or priorities yet. Pinger–in 1990, the city didn’t have money, and the Pearl was started, URA/PDC funding sought. TIF funds future still being worked out. Genasci–couldn’t the PDC take money up front? Pinger–the Pearl plan was pretty effective. Genasci–missed some aspects, but a good model. Bradley–in this economic environment, will folks see ConWay as blighted? and ConWay has money. Pinger–What would you like go to Joe–I keep getting stuck on (came up in Pearl plan) the city has a view that density in itself is a public benefit. Pretty sure we see density as a vehicle to public amenities, not a value in itself. Sieber–might look at two economic models, with URA and without–because if you plan only with that assumption and it doesn’t come, then you’re stuck. Bramlett–next couple of meetings are how did they arrive here? What didn’t work, etc. Genasci–who’s going to pay for the plan, how do we counter the proposals if we don’t know the numbers. How do we get somebody to do this? Bradley–up until the recent financial crash, they looked for 20% Rate of Return, as the lowest. Vrilakas–they looked for 50 or 60%. Sieber–re density for own sake. The rebuttal could be that the city has more capacity than need in zoning, and the Portland Plan is suppose to apportion this in the best way. Answers questions about how the zoning capacity was developed and where mandates came from. Walters–where is the power? Welch–isn’t this a real opportunity to work with the community to develop a place people want to live? Pinger–re power: there is a set of entitlements on that property. To propose more is not just inevitable. This gives the neighborhood a significant amount of power. But the idea that a 6:1 development model could be a thing of rare beauty is possible, better perhaps that 3:1. Look across at the 2.5:1. If parceled off, then would be attractive to that development model. Theisen– I heard, from me mostly. We don’t understand the process, within are funding (URA) agency involvement, economic analysis, Pub/Priv partnership. Boundary? Design and Density concerns. Bradley–as Don said, Design standards based on urban design plan. Theisen–sense of Joe, is that we’re a knowledgeable bunch, often reactionary, obstructive, but we would be willing to partner.

Planning Minutes – 10/16/08

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 10/16/08

NWDA Planning Cte 10 16 08

John Bradley, Ron Walters, Bill Welch, Larry Westerman, Don Genasci, Steve Pinger
Lee Stapleton, Allan Classen, Don Soweja, Mert Meeker, Adam ______

Bradley–RFR, new project, will be design advice request coming up.
19th & Johnson
Ground Floor
5 floors, 55 units, 20 studio, 35 1 bedroom apartments. Not depth of market for larger units. 15 parking stalls, one loading stall. Submitted modification request to reduce loading stall size. City said no modification due to historic FAR transfer, architects argued that only applied to base zone standards to which the loading stall code does not belong, and prevailed. Transferred 17,000 sf FAR 4.68:1, in the middle of the 3:1 6:1 range.
Maintained massing, two masses adjacent to one another. Brick cornice & bay on 19th, wrap corner to Johnson St. with second articulation. Working within historic district, taking cues from Landmarks Commission. Not derivative, but taking cures. Base, body & cap, overhanging cornice, bay articulation, though more contemporary.
On Johnson side, mansard roof, articulating base body & cap, lap siding with CMU rather than the brick of the 19th street portion. With historic structure nearby, want to step. But need to have 6 stories. Heard landmarks comments about height and stepping, we think this is appropriate. Also have letters of support from east and south neighbors, historic homes.
On eastern facade, lap siding, green screen of vine along the wall (blank face, on base.)
North facade, brick along the Johnson street side wraps brick with windows on that strip (vertical row.)
Ground floor detail perspective highlights materials, corner bay window, residential entry on Johnson, business on 19th.
Don’t have a full site plan (Welch wants to know about setback.)
30’ to house.
Stapleton–Any window units for AC not yet articulated on drawings? No. Mansard all around. Check out Pendergast building (?)
Have not considered taking mansard roof all the way around, separation of masses beneficial.

Genasci–the most important elevation, on Johnson, in the interest of art, the house has disappeared on the illustration. Unfortunate that there is a 6 story building next to two stories. Could you see your way clear to 5 stories & lowering the Mansard roof, more windows on that facade as a gesture to not overwhelm the house next door. Loses 4 apartments, perhaps; not bust the budget.
Welch–if there is a 3:1 FAR, how is it you can transfer 3:1?
Bradley–transfers allowed 2 miles in historic districts.
Soweja–if at full site capacity would be 3 floors, but with smaller footprint and transfer we get to the 4.68:1
Bradley–has real concerns about compatibility. The cap & base was glossed over, how is this compatible with buildings on 19th and around it?
Soweja–you find buildings with consistent material, older homes floor heights have 55-60’ to top, newer buildings more. Scale relationships 21st and Johnson, more detailed and articulated, 5 stories. Base articulation, older buildings (photos shown) with different base and then capped with interval cornice line. We’ve taken that approach with differing materials.
From the top of the base to the underside of the cap is relatively similar, consistent mid area until you get to the cap. Bays are different, we believe it’s important to make reference to older buildings but it’s not that. The difference is glazing.
Does the cap make the building smaller? Could argue that changing the color of the cap makes it look smaller, but I believe it’s the articulation. Better solution than non-articulated cap that bleeds off into the sky.
Bradley–so let’s look at what you’ve done to distinguish the cap.
Soweja–precast concrete line, goes all the way around the building.
Meeks–show how ground floor articulation works.
Soweja–aligned with precast, canopies, and though line doesn’t draw through this, it ties it together.
Bradley–although the description is strong base, forthright middle and cap, adding a line of color does not necessarily make it so. I agree with Don about the scale. Is this a building for NW Portland, or for the Pearl District? I see it as more towards the Pearl style.
You have a high hurdle to get over here, it’s an historic district. Not as reminiscent of what goes on in this district.
Soweja–historic vs some new construction, shows an existing property photo.
Don–that’s probably one of the worst buildings in the neighborhood. Mansard roof is least important part. It’s the relative size relative to the strong but two-story buildings adjacent and across the street. Permanent relationship, as those will not be developed anywhere in the near future. Heavy handed. As an architect, one has a responsibility that when you’re building in an historic district we’re desperately trying to hang on to the character, and I don’t think you’re noticing.
These are three really wonderful buildings, and you’re dropping a six story building that could be built anywhere into the middle of them. Doesn’t make any significant gesture to the area.
Walters–why did you choose the L-shape?
Soweja–Windows are important to windows, and this opens that up.
Walters–had you considered a lower building that makes more use of footprint.
Soweja–there’s a depth below which you can’t make a viable living unit and don’t have the opportunity to make the turn.
Walters–you said lots of reasons for six floors?
Sowja–financial viability of the project.
Genasci–is all the sixth floor?
Soweja–yes, at this time.
Stapleton–if parking entrance changed could that lower the building? Take parking below grade, lower the floor and drop down the eastern portion.
Soweja–we evaluated ground floor residences and wouldn’t do that.
Moving the garage to retail side eats up that space. Current plan makes it in line for the parking inside.
Welch–what plan do you have for making sure that no more than 15 residents (the amount of parking) don’t own cars? This is on a main bike route, but 40 tenants won’t be bike riders. How do we keep the overflow of parking into our area?
Stapleton–could make more parking underground, change building configuration.
Pinger–appreciates the development program, but it’s tricky to get it to work in an historic district. Building type?
Soweja–Type 3 b construction, street level floor to floor 12’, residential 10’.
Pinger–concerned that street level is pressed down–6 floors in 65’ is tough. Thinks there will be more stuff going on on the top of the building. HVAC etc.
I guess you’ve made the Johnson Street elevation into two, not wild about mansard derivative forms. Taken out of context, likes the 19th street elevation & bay design, but if you really have this tripartite articulation of the facade it just doesn’t come through very strong. Scales and proportions need to be transmitted to the rest of the building.
There have been a couple of projects that come through here trying to maximize the floors within a certain height, and it’s such a squish. An odd height maximum. If you give them 2’ on the ground floor for reasonable proportion. Lap siding not great, a more permanent gesture would be welcomed.
Genasci–not having housing on ground floor is a good decision; if the ground floor was raised up say 3’, you could actually begin to think about dropping, would gain you nearly a floor and have stairs up to it as direct ground floor access.
Double parking entrance–go to one, it’s only 15 cars. Becomes single opening, room for a couple of stoops together, and you’d need to drop parking into it, there’s site slope there.
Soweja–actually make two buildings, as the floor levels would be different?
Genasci–this would make a real gesture to scale. There’s a way you could jiggle the floors, maybe even drop a full floor so the others line up, and you don’t need access to the lower floor.
Pinger–would you give them 3’ on 19th?
Genasci–could do one two-story unit. I think there is a solution here that would make the landmarks commission happy, but for us it’s that we’d like a solution that fits into this very special place.
Stapleton–Could be live-work on street level.
Genasci–would be more interesting than conventional 1 bedroom units.
Westerman–allowed windows?
Soweja-% allowed is in proportion to setback; ours is 6”.

Planning Minutes – 10/02/08

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 10/02/08

NWDA Planning Cte 10 2 08

John Bradley, Don Genasci, Bill Welch, Larry Westerman, Ron Walters, Steve Pinger, Allan Classen

Bradley–Attended CW Land Use Cte Monday, Sam Adams attended. His 3 key items for mayorship: 43% dropout rate at High Schools (supposedly); 1/4 of the people are working poor or unemployed, far too many; Portland scheduled to receive 1 million new people, 150,000 to 200,000 for downtown areas in next ten years.
He feels budget restraints are coming, two year recession gulch, 10-15 million cut in revenue expected.
Private investment along streetcar lines is 3x what it is on comparably served bus routes. He’ll present a four year plan.

Since road repairs never materialized, plans to shift funds away from side streets and to arterial streets, only remedial pot holes.

Welch–does this mean widening, streamlining?

Genasci–makes logical sense, but if you’re trying to slow down traffic potholes work really well. Maybe we should do pedestrian improvements.

Westerman–PDOT argues that arterials are more expensive to repair once broken down.

Walters–you have to get to your local neighborhoods.

Pinger–23rd an arterial? Yes.

Bradley–Are we ok with this? (generally, yes, we guess.)

Given the shortfall of money, recap of what went on last week at ConWay. Re-evaluate that ConWay will be part of the Central City Plan, as the downtown folks see it. Probably a swipe up to 18th. ConWay-Burnside, finger at rest of ConWay.
Whether in CC Plan or merely part of Portland Plan, does it behoove us to do meeting with ConWay with the proviso that it’s about massing and FAR, not height.

Westerman–given a new designation with CCP, look at N. Pearl adjustments to great height, erasing land use that went before.

Bradley–still a great deal of questioning as to whether the infrastructure can support greater heights. ODOT doesn’t want to degrade

Westerman–there’s a stub for a ramp that could come up from ConWay property.

Genasci–isn’t that what we should be doing anyway, looking at height and mass.

Westerman–if they extend CCP, they are saying the N. Pearl is what they want.

Pinger–last 15 years have been changes in underlying code, but there is a trend for exchanging increases for public benefit. Doesn’t see this as the model for ConWay or this neighborhood per se, but there is an aspect of public entitlements that isn’t a bad thing.

Bradley–was testy last week, in part because we haven’t had a good relationship with ConWay, MOU signed which they ignored. Because they have been so reticent to say what they want, I’m suspicious. We have safeguards in our own plan that it’s important to keep in place.
We need to start with the things that are the safest for us to do on a neighborhood level, design, massing studies. That way we don’t trip up, and we add to level of safety.

Pinger–ConWay will want to define their entitlements, not in any position to present any buildings.

Genasci–this is where ConWay comes in, if a developer comes in knows they can only do so much, based on a plan we have been a part of and is transparent.

Walters–what are our concerns that if we participate we’ll get railroaded into something.

Welch–they can say we’re not prof planners.

Pinger–can see this as giving them some security so they don’t have to fight us all along.

Walters–we don’t need to be prof planners, to say in general what we want.

Bradley–as soon as someone from our organization says oh, we were mistaken, maybe more height to 165’ is ok, it sets it to a new level and is vulnerable to creep when it comes to Council. Happened in last round of parking negotiations, and with the Uptown Tower.

Welch–we gave them incredible amounts of free money with the increases in the area in our last plan.

Walters–fundamental economics in a 20-acre neighborhood means the city will be involved. We know there will be a pressure. One option is without precondition to participate, without which we get screwed in the end. We have a plan, one extreme is to let them hear we have it, go knock yourself out. The other extreme is to participate and take ten steps from the shallow to the deep end. Need some preconditions.
Bradley–I think you put your finger on it, what are the preconditions.
Hyams–need something in writing.
Pinger–you could develop the area within current zoning, it would pencil, but we might not like it , would be more suburban than we would want–e.g. 20th/Pettygrove. If we’re serious about wanting to pursue public amenities the only way to do this is by negotiating. They won’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Welch–affordable housing may be even more important as a public entitlement than parks.
Pinger–our job is to shepherd the NWDP, there’s always a danger that we’ll get someone culled out and ground on, but we can handle ourselves.
Sees not so much suspicion as a difference of needs. Preconditions? Maybe more about the composition of the committee, more than development program.
Genasci–we also need to do our homework, know the plan, the history, so we’re really aware of the parameters we want.

Bradley–for next meeting could look at the preconditions we might want.

Genasci–what was their suggested makeup of the committee?

Bradley–two people from Goose, NINA, Pearl, Cent CIty planning, ConWay, 5 NWDA.
Welch: 14 to 5.

Pinger–other neighborhoods ex officio?

Westerman–would be a mistake to see this as a democratic committee.

Pinger–true, but they could use our support, which gives us leverage.

MS–opportunity here, this proposed cte notes neighborhoods, where the city committees are by class and–to exaggerate–have say 17 classes of business and three of community.

Westerman–one of the points you made last week is the city has a formal process. Runs against stated process for community involvement. Maybe he knows the city will or won’t have citizen input. We’ve hung our hat on the fact that the neighborhood plan and the community involvement, but it the city moves the area into a new plan district that goes out the window.

Bradley–Sam wonders how our planning districts & neighborhoods work with new Portland Plan. What happens when Portland Plans comes to be looked at?
Let’s continue this next week–have everyone think about the preconditions other than how the group is formed.

RFR I just got, type III NE corner 19th & Johnson, HDZ new 6-story mixed use 45,000 sf on 10,000 sf lot. Gated parking entrance facing Johnson.

Westerman–what’s CMU?
Genasci–Cinder Block. Oriel=small bay window.

Welch–three of the nicest historic buildings in the neighborhood are adjacent, the office building, the Schnitzer building at 19th and Johnson-Kearney and the house at 18th.

Bradley–besides mansard roof, also transfer of 17,000 sf brings FAR from 3:1 to 4.68:1. Restarted the clock, they must think this is a major revision.

***Shall we invite them in again? Start making comments…

Ask them in for the 16th. 8 am.

RICAP 5. Some items relate to us, some general procedural matters. Please look them over and we’ll talk about it later.

Transportation Minutes – October 1, 2008

Comments Off on Transportation Minutes – October 1, 2008

NWDA Transportation Committee Meeting
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
NW Library

Members present: Kim Carlson, Jeanne Harrison, Devin Liebmann, Joel Wieshaus
Members excused: Sharon Kelly, Bud Clark

NWNW Staff: Mark Sieber

Guests: Brian Sheehan, Steve Pinger, Rick Michaelson, Karen Karlsson, Ron Walters, Allan Classen, Juliet Hyams, Paul Kovitz, Ross Hubbard, Don Singer, Michael Feldman,

Update and status of the remand: Brian Sheehan, Portland Planning
Planning and PDOT are revising their approach to the remand based on NWDA concerns expressed at previous meetings. They have taken another look at two main issues:
1) Do the majority of trips on Vaughn conform to it’s street classification?
Their finding: Yes it meets the classification.
The committee members and guests present did not agree. The number of trucks using Vaughn to NW St. Helens Road via Ward Way is excessive. Trucks are loud and aggressive, creating nuisance and safety issues for residents and businesses along Vaughn. Trucks are not allowed on Ward Way, and trucks exiting the freeway have no choice but to use this connection illegally. Vaughn Street is in a freight district because it borders the industrial area, but it is not a freight route. Steps must be taken to redirect trucks on Vaughn.

2) How does development effect the level of service rating at the NW 23rd Avenue and Vaughn intersection?
Their finding: The intersection is not failing, yet, but more development will lower the rate. Changes to the intersection could improve this. Removing the left U turn was discussed. This potential fix for the intersection in question is problematic for the neighborhood because it only transfers the problem to NW 23rd and Thurman St. This is unacceptable to the neighborhood. The committee members and guests present were interested in making sure the neighborhood is included in finding solutions for this problem.

A PDOT report is being drafted. PDOT and Planning will meet with ODOT, and a public review process will follow. It will then go to City Council.

Brian was invited to return to the December Transportation Committee meeting with PDOT to discuss the draft report. We requested that the committee see copies of the report in advance of the meeting. An electronic copy can be sent to Kim Carlson at and she will forward it to the committee members.

Lovejoy-Northrup couplet in the Pearl: Rick Michaelson and Karen Karlsson, residents on Northrup, explained that the proposed couplet will have unintended consequences for the NWDA because it will shift the congestion to our neighborhood. They are particularly concerned about Northrup westbound and claim there is not need for a couplet because no congestion currently exists westbound in the Pearl and it has not been evaluated. They have asked the City to delay the westbound one-way street until the need has been evaluated through a transportation study.

NW 24th Street has become an extension of the I-405 off-ramp, according to neighbors attending the meeting. Post Office trucks and Trimet buses are incorrectly using this street during the night as a cut-off. Kim will contact PDOT.