GBD Architects hit the right combination of historical reverence and architectural beauty in its proposal for two seven-story buildings in the South Waterfront District, according to the Portland Design Commission.

Commissioners on Thursday praised GBD’s design for blocks 42 and 45, calling it a significant architectural asset to the area before approving the proposal with a 4-0 vote. Commissioner David Wark abstained.

“Now when we see anything else,” Commission Vice Chairman Tad Savinar said, “I am going to say, ‘Take a look at Block 42/45,’ because they are excellent examples of how you can build in this economy, and with these sites, to do something that is extraordinary.”

Cairn Pacific is developing the project for owner Prometheus Real Estate Group. Block 42 will have close to 200 market-rate apartments and Block 45 will have around 315. Each building will have approximately 14,000 square feet of retail space.

The development site is bordered by Southwest Lane Street on the north, Southwest Bond Avenue on the west, Southwest River Parkway on the east and Southwest Lowell Street on the south.

The two buildings were designed to reflect the area’s history of use by the shipbuilding and lumber industries. For Block 42, designers tried to give the appearance of wood stacks as they might have appeared in the early 1900s.

“We are excited about the rich character that (the building) creates along the street,” said Tye Bailey, an associate with GBD Architects. “Looking at lumberyards, you have the stacks oriented in all these different variations. So we applied that logic to the facade in a way that creates an alternating rhythm of texture and light and shadow around the building.”

Designers took advice from a previous hearing and reworked the live-work units and the retail space to create a larger shopping zone in the northwest corner. They also reconfigured a plaza to create more community space.

The end result left commissioners with little to criticize.

“It’s just what it needs to be a proud building,” Savinar said. “No tricks, just architecture.”

Design Commission Chairwoman Julie Livingston was equally complimentary.

“The changes that you’ve made, while pretty subtle, really have turned this from a strong building with a big idea into an extraordinary building with a big idea,” she said.

Commissioners were nearly as complimentary of the Block 45 design. The concept aims to pay homage to the waterfront’s shipbuilding legacy.

“We tried to make the three buildings look like ships,” said Ashley Koger, an associate with GBD Architects.

The main issues commissioners had with the plans were the lack of canopies on the ground floor and placement of balconies on the east and west ends of the buildings.

Though the balconies became glass juliets and another foot was added to the recess for the retail space, in place of canopies, it wasn’t enough to win Wark’s vote even though he was complimentary of the design overall.

“The canopies are the thing for me,” he said. “I think these are exemplary projects in many ways. The projects will set a new level of quality for the South Waterfront with the exception of canopies.”

The lack of canopies wasn’t enough to dissuade other commissioners though.

“You have done a great job,” Livingston said. “Both of these buildings are great additions to South Waterfront.”

Other projects addressed by the Design Commission on Thursday included:

Multifamily building

An appeal by the Cathedral Park Neighborhood Association of Type II approval of SERA Architects‘ design for a five-story market-rate apartment building at 6620 N. Richmond St. was put on hold for three weeks. An attorney for the Union Pacific Railroad had requested the record be held open. The appeal will resume on Sept. 28. The project owner/developer is Ben Wood of North Crawford Partners/Mainland North Richmond LLC.

Mixed-use building

The Design Commission sent plans for a six-story mixed-use building at 1732 N.E. Second Ave., in the Eliot neighborhood, back to the design team for revisions. Works Progress Architecture is designing the project for developer Parker McNulty of ENT Ventures VI LLC. The project will return before the commission on Oct. 5.

Also on Thursday:

City Council finalizes two decisions

The Portland City Council issued final decisions on two appeals stemming from Design Commission decisions.

Commissioners unanimously overturned the Design Commission’s denial of developer Landon Crowell‘s proposal to build a 17-unit, L-shaped building at 1122 S.E. Ankeny St. Development of a proposed 70-foot apartment building, around a single-family residence, will be allowed to go forward.

Commissioners also unanimously rejected an appeal by neighbors of the Design Commission’s approval of the massive Press Blocks project on 1.5 blocks in Goose Hollow. The Goose Hollow Foothills League opposes the three-building project from developers Urban Renaissance Group and Security Properties.

The decisions were expected after previous City Council hearings. Commissioners Nick Fish and Dan Saltzman were absent from the meeting, which lasted fewer than five minutes. – Chuck Slothower

The post South Waterfront project has historical perspective appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The week of Aug. 8 was a rarity for Portland City Council, but some are concerned it may be a harbinger of things to come.

Two appeals of decisions by the city’s Design Commission landed on the City Council’s docket that week. While a quirk of scheduling was responsible for the timing of two cases in one week, the situation highlights what appears to be a growing tendency for architects and developers to appeal design decisions when they aren’t satisfied with the outcome.

In the past eight months, for example, the City Council has seen four appeals of Design Commission decisions and one appeal of a decision by the Historic Landmarks Commission.

It’s a trend that hasn’t gone unnoticed members of those commissions

“We have gone years and not had an appeal,” said Portland Design Commissioner David Wark. “There are definitely more appeals.”

Because the Design Commission is the body that oversees many of the design decisions that happen in some of the fastest-growing areas of the city, it also has the largest number of cases that get appealed. Appeals can be filed by the applicant, owner or those who have testified at a hearing either in person or in writing.

The appeals run the gamut from appealing an entire decision to appealing conditions put on an approval.  Decisions can also be appealed by neighborhood groups looking to stop or at least slow down a project.

There are many reasons cited for the increased numbers of appeals. The number of cases the commissions see has increased as Portland’s construction boom has picked up speed.

“I don’t think we are seeing a flood gate in terms of appeals,” said City Commissioner Dan Saltzman. “We are seeing more appeals because we have more projects.”

From the perspective of developers, several issues are driving the surge in appeals. Some developers feel that the commissions are taking too long to approve projects, changing guidelines from hearing to hearing and making arbitrary decisions that reduce height and density on projects. The longer it takes to receive approval, the more it costs developers. So rather than adjust a project, they decide to take decisions they don’t like directly to the City Council via an appeal.

Landon Crowell, a developer who appealed a Design Commission denial of his Ankeny Apartments project, said he believed continually changing criteria hurt his project.

“Ankeny Apartments was more about stopping the development,” he said. “(They were) spinning the design team around in circles to exhaust financial resources by changing the requirements each hearing.”

The project went through five design hearings before being denied by the Design Commission in a unanimous vote. Crowell then appealed the decision to City Council, which held four hearings of its own in an attempt to reach an agreement between neighbors who opposed the project, Bureau of Development Services staff, and Crowell and his development team.

In the end, City Council overturned the Design Commission’s denial and allowed the project to move forward. Several City Commissioners voiced concerns about the way the process worked.

“In future applications that go to the Design Commission,” said Commissioner Amanda Fritz, “I hope that things will get resolved there before five times because this is not the best use of the council’s time.”

City Council has to balance letting the commissions do their jobs and providing a fair process for developers that disagree with a decision, according to Saltzman.

“For the most part, most developers work with the Design Commission,” he said. “There are disagreements and it is fair and appropriate to bring those to council.”

It isn’t just denials that are being appealed. TMT Development appealed a Design Commission approval for the renovation of the Studio Building and Guild Theater because the development company didn’t like conditions related to the replacement of windows in the project. The required changes would have pushed up the project cost by $105,000, according to TMT Development President Vanessa Sturgeon

Upon appeal, the City Council struck down the conditions by a 4-1 vote. In his prevailing argument, Mayor Ted Wheeler said a needed renovation of an old building shouldn’t be endangered by what a majority of the commissioners considered a minor improvement.

Saltzman agreed.

“I think you have to weigh (the cost of the change) against our city code,” he said.

Members of the Design Commission, however, point out that while those types of decisions by City Council can help move a needed project forward, they also increase the incentive for developers to appeal decisions.

“The (City Council) needs to let the (Design Commission) be its voice,” Wark said. “It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy; the more appeals they (uphold), the more appeals they will get.”

The Design Commission has a different set of guiding principles than other city agencies and bureaus, according to Wark. As a result, City Council has the freedom to consider issues that the Design Commission can’t turn to in its decision-making process.

“Aspects like tenant standard and pro-forma are not in the purview of the (Design Commission),” Wark said. “We just look at it through the guidelines.”

Even when all parties at a design review or historic landmarks hearing agree on a decision about a project, it can still be appealed by a neighbor or neighborhood association dissatisfied with the decision.

The Goose Hollow Neighborhood Association, for example, appealed the approval of the Press Blocks project that would replace the former Oregonian building with three new buildings. The association was concerned by the height of the project’s residential tower, but saw its concerns shot down by City Council.

Given the city’s relatively open appeals process, reducing the number of appeals that land in front of City Council may be tough to accomplish. However, some solutions are already being tried.

Julie Livingston, who recently stepped into the role of chairwoman for the Design Commission, plans to start getting applicants’ views of conditions on the record. She said she and other Design Commission members were caught by surprise by TMT Development’s appeal of the Studio Building and Guild Theatre decision because the development team did not express reservations about the condition during the design review hearing.

“When we are negotiating conditions, I am going to check in with the applicant and I want the applicant to state on the record, ‘I am OK with this,’” Livingston said. “If it goes to (City Council), I want to be able to say that the applicant was OK with that.”

Changes coming to the design guidelines as part of the Design Overlay Zone Assessment (DOZA) may also help clear ambiguity.

“Some of the (current) guidelines are pretty general and pretty vague,” Saltzman said. “I hope it will put more flesh on the bones and define how it should be applied. I am hopeful it will help.”

The Portland Bureau of Development also is adopting a new process of problem solving that may help mitigate the number of appeals.

Ultimately, though, Design Commissioners say City Council has the most control over how many appeals it sees.

“The whole process can only happen with the political support of the city,” Wark said. “(If the City Council wants fewer appeals) the City Council needs to be consistent with its support of commission decisions.”

The post The right to appeal appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Portland City Council tentatively overturned a Portland Design Commission denial of the Ankeny Apartments project by a 4-0 vote on Wednesday.

The seven-story, L-shaped complex at 1122 S.E. Ankeny St. will wrap around two single-family houses, and will include 16 apartments and ground-floor retail. The design has drawn criticism from neighbors but won praise from the City Council for efforts to make the project a net-zero energy building.

The latest change from earlier versions of the building was the adoption of setbacks ranging from 18 inches to three feet from the property lines on the south, north and east sides of the structure. The original design left the structure built up to the property line on all sides, which had concerned neighbors.

“I want to thank the applicant and the neighbors who spent a considerable amount of time going back and forth on this, and I think coming to a very solid and amical resolution,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said before casting his vote in favor of the project.

After the hearing, project developer Landon Crowell applauded the efforts of the city’s staff, especially Grace Jeffreys and Tim Heron of the city’s Bureau of Development Services. He also gave a nod to his development team, which included Jerry Waters of Yost Grube Hall Architecture, Tim Ramis of Jordan Ramis and Greg Vik of Vik Construction.

Other changes in the project from previous versions evaluated by the Design Commission included the addition of wood siding material on parts of the structure and a slight reduction in tower height.

“I have no standing to say this, but I think the revised building is an improvement over the original building,” Commissioner Nick Fish said.  “I congratulate you for balancing the neighborhood’s concerns,  but also having a building that is quite distinctive.”

The development team also volunteered to add a construction mitigation plan as a condition of receiving City Council approval. The plan will require an assessment of surrounding properties before and after construction to identify any damage that might occur during construction.

“This project has gone from being a zero lot line project to one that has setbacks,” said Ramis, who served as Crowell’s  legal counsel. “That distinction has allowed us to address things like maintenance questions and construction issues.”

The development team  also agreed to avoid any pile driving during construction. The issue had been a sticking point with neighbors who  feared the process would damage their properties.

“We will use an auger system where we will drill a hole in the ground and inject concrete,” Ramis said. “If we tried to do (pile driving), it would be a violation of our construction plan and we couldn’t do it.”

The road to approval has been a long one for the project. First proposed in February 2016, it went through five Design Commission hearings and four City Council hearings before finally winning approval.

“I am really reluctant to reward a process that has had five hearings at the Design Commission and (four) hearing before us,” Commissioner Amanda Fritz said before casting her vote. “I appreciate the neighbors having been responded to at the end; it would have been better to have respond to them at the beginning.”

Wednesday’s vote was tentative. A staff report will be needed to finalize the updated design and construction plan before final approval is given. The final vote on the appeal will be held Aug. 31.

The post Updated (full story): City Council overturns denial of Ankeny Apartments project design appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Ankeny Apartments project’s tortured path through the Portland City Council took another turn Wednesday that left developer Landon Crowell’s proposal still in limbo.

The council extended Crowell’s appeal of the Portland Design Commission‘s denial of project plans to Aug. 9.

“I am speechless,” Crowell said directly after the hearing.

Crowell and Yost Grube Hall Architecture presented to the City Council revised plans that would reduce the height of the L-shaped building on Southeast 12th Avenue to 58 feet from 75 feet, increase setbacks from neighboring property lines and eliminate two residential units. Also, the building’s lobby would move to Southeast Ankeny Street from 1th Avenue.

The revised plans ran into two major hurdles. The first was that the project team had not presented the Bureau of Development Services with detailed documentation for review. Without that documentation, the new design could not be evaluated in regard to issues such as city code, zoning and design guidelines.

Another issue concerned whether an 18-inch setback on the north elevation was sufficient.

The new design was a result of mediation with the neighborhood association and neighboring homeowners.

“We thought we did what was asked and more,” Crowell stated via email Thursday morning. “However, council was using a moving target.”

The changes were enough to satisfy the Buckman Community Association and neighbors south of the project site.

“During mediation, the neighbors were offered the opportunity to redesign the building,” Crowell stated in the email. “They asked for cedar finishes, which we complied. We made attempts to conciliate with the neighbors to the north, but they were unresponsive.”

However, neighbors with properties in the elbow of the L-shaped development were still unhappy with its design.

“The building still doesn’t meet the guidelines,” Priscilla Sturges said during the meeting. She has owned the house at 112 S.E. 12th Ave. for 40 years and has consistently criticized the project. “We have no privacy, no guarantees about who will pay for possible damage to our property. Destabilizing neighborhoods like this is a blight on Portland.”

While commissioners expressed generally that the changes were a step in the right direction, Commissioner Amanda Fritz said the setback of the north elevation should be greater.

“For me it doesn’t go far enough,” she said. “There has been some good movement. It is in everyone’s interest to get to yes.”

That is one area that the City Council and Crowell agree. If his project is rejected, he said, a bigger project would likely surface next year when height limits in the area increase.

“My development partners and I will either be forced to resubmit next year or another developer will submit by next year should we sell,” Crowell said. “Either way, the neighbors will end up with a bigger development next to them and net zero (energy use) is a fantasy.”

Commissioner Chloe Eudaly summed up many of the commissioners’ opinions.

“The appellant has made a good faith effort with the neighbors,” she said. “I think some of the neighbors wish this whole thing would go away, and that isn’t going to happen.”

Another concern was raised by Commissioner Nick Fish.

“Are we setting a precedent where a developer could refuse to work with Design Commission, come to us, opt out in effect and create a second process through a community negotiation and have the council make the findings?” he said.

The City Council looked at several options, including approving the design with conditions, denying the appeal or continuing the hearing to allow city staff to evaluate revisions.

In the end, the council decided to continue the hearing to Aug. 9 and await the staff’s evaluation as to whether the new design meets the guidelines. That leaves the project’s ultimate fate largely in the hands of the Bureau of Development Services.

“I almost feel like I am at a Design Commission hearing,” senior planner Tim Heron said.

The post Ankeny Apartments still in limbo despite mediation, revised plans appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Portland City Council on Wednesday extended a hearing on the Ankeny Apartments project for a third time without making a final decision. The hearing is an appeal of the Portland Design Commission‘s denial of the project.

Developer Landon Crowell presented to the council a revised plan for the proposed structure at 1122 S.E. Ankeny St. One problem was that Crowell’s team had not presented detailed documentation to city staff for evaluation. Another issue was that multiple city councilors expressed concern that setbacks from property lines would be insufficient.

While the new plan satisfied the neighborhood association and neighbors to the south of the project site, other neighbors spoke out against the project.

The biggest change to the project is a return to cedar siding material, according to Crowell. The height of the Southeast 12th Avenue elevation was reduced to 58 feet from 75 feet. The new plan also calls for two fewer apartments.

The original design of the L-shaped complex called for 17 luxury apartments. It was poised to become the city’s first and nation’s seventh net-zero-energy multifamily structure.

During the first appeal hearing for the project on April 12, the City Council requested that the development team try to iron out differences with the Buckman Community Association. The hearing was then extended twice so that discussions with various stakeholders could take place.

The post UPDATED: Ankeny Apartments still in limbo appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Developer Landon Crowell‘s appeal of the Portland Design Commission‘s denial of his Ankeny Apartments project was extended for a second time by the Portland City Council on Thursday.

The next hearing on the project planned at 1122 S.E. Ankeny St. is scheduled for June 8. The council previously heard arguments during a three-hour hearing on April 12.

As designed, the L-shaped complex would include 17 luxury apartments and be the city’s first and nation’s seventh net-zero-energy multifamily structure. Strong opposition has come from neighboring property owners, the Buckman Community Association and the Design Commission.

During the first hearing on the appeal, the City Council requested that the Our Land Development team meet with the neighborhood group and immediate neighbors. Though the meeting with the Buckman Community Association took place, the meeting with the immediate neighbors has not.

One of the driving forces in the mediation is the fear that if the Ankeny Apartments proposal fizzles, an even larger proposal for the site could follow. New building height limits will rise to 125 feet next year. The Ankeny Apartments proposal calls for a structure 75 feet high.

“It’s in the best interests of the neighbors to get to yes,” Commissioner Amanda Fritz said at the April 12 meeting.

Resolutions Northwest and the Portland Bureau of Development Services are helping facilitate the negotiations.

The post Appeal of multifamily project denial extended again appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Explosive growth in Portland has brought with it numerous challenges. One is management of the pace of projects’ movement through the city’s often glacial design review process. A team working on a project planned within a design overlay zone that requires a Type III review can find itself in a laborious process before any shovel gets into the ground.

“If I have a client that has gone through the process, they know what to expect,” said Leslie Cliffe, an associate principal at Bora Architects. “If I have an out-of-state developer, in those cases, they are super surprised at the level of input the city gets.”

Even in normal times, the process can be slow. These are not normal times for development in Portland.

“Prior to the 2008 recession was the first wave of hyper-development,” Portland Design Commission Chairman David Wark said. “The last three years, it’s just gotten busier and busier.”

The Design Commission’s job is to make sure that proposals for new construction and modifications to existing structures meet the city’s design guidelines. They apply to approximately 5 percent of the city, but some of its most prime real estate.

In hopes of accelerating the process, the commission, consisting of seven volunteers, has increased its workload from meetings twice a month to at least three times a month. Each meeting consists of four or more hearings, which last between one and three hours, depending on the size of the project. The meetings start at 1:30 p.m. and can last well into the night.

“It’s a minor celebration if we are done by 7:30,” Wark said. “We try to get them done (by then), but often we go past that.”

It’s a far cry from five years ago.

“During that recession, sometimes we didn’t have a commission meeting because there weren’t any projects,” Wark said. “We came out of that around 2012 and 2013.”

That recovery has resulted in a building boom, and the city has strained to keep pace.

“We have hired seven new employees since August 2015,” said Kara Fioravanti, supervising planner with Bureau of Development Services. “It is a significantly bigger boom than any I have experienced in my 20 years here.”

According to state law, a project has to navigate the review process within 120 days of submittal. A project’s first hearing has to take place within 51 days of submittal. But architects can sign waivers releasing the city from the state obligation.

“Every project gets a 120-day waiver,” Cliffe said. “We always sign the waiver.”

By signing the waiver, architects can return before the Design Commission if it denies a project proposal at its first appearance. The waiver also protects appeal rights.

If architects don’t sign the waiver, they can’t provide new or changed information later in the process. Also, if the project were denied, the team would have to start the process over.

Fees for the review process are dependent on a project’s size and range from a minimum of $5,250 to a maximum of $27,000.

“We hit that 51-day mark pretty regularly,” Fioravanti said. “The waiver just allows them to come back. It’s when the applicant chooses to come back for another hearing. That is when the timeline gets extended. They aren’t signing the waivers because the commission is too busy.”

The problem is that few projects receive approval on the first try. Of the seven projects scheduled for a full review by the end of May, four were on at least their second trip before the Design Commission.

None of that includes the time and money spent on a design advice request (DAR). The Design Commission advises architects and developers to seek a DAR, which costs an additional $2,520, before the review hearing. During the DAR hearing, the commission informs a project team of aspects that could pose problems meeting the guidelines. This hearing takes place early enough in the process so that changes can be made without incurring large costs for developers.

While most architects seek a DAR hearing, scheduling can cause problems. Developers usually have a strict timeline. A long wait for a hearing can force contractors to delay when they seek bids for construction services.

“I had a project that it was going to be 11 weeks before they could schedule a DAR,” Cliffe said. “It required me to eliminate design advice because it would shift the hearing into the construction document phase.”

Commissioner Tad Savinar said that applicants can look to their colleagues for tips on navigating the process quickly.

“We have a lot of firms that get through on one DAR and one hearing,” he said. “Why are those groups getting through? There is a host of things that the applicant can do to improve their performance within this hearing.”

The city is trying to address developers’ issues. The number of staffers devoted to producing reports and making recommendations to both the Design Commission and the Historic Landmarks Commission has increased by seven since August 2015.

Also, in 2016 the Design Commission published “A Guide to the City of Portland Design Review Process” to serve as a best practices document for area developers and architects.

Project teams also can help accelerate the process, Wark said.

“The biggest thing that helps is if applicants are more responsive to the guidelines,” he said. “That way we don’t have the same project coming in time after time and taking up the spot of another project.”

Some architects are taking the advice to heart. More projects are gaining approval on their first hearing. Hacker’s recent Ladd’s Addition project received approval at its first hearing and won commissioners’ praise for meeting guidelines.

On the other end of the spectrum is developer Landon Crowell‘s Ankeny Apartments. The project appeared before the Design Commission five times before denial was granted and an appeal was made to the City Council.

The delay, now several months, has cost Crowell and his investors nearly $120,000, he said. Crowell and Yost Grube Hall Architecture, for their initial proposal, decided to rely on information from a pre-application meeting instead of a full DAR.

“Our idea was to have the superstructure in place by March (2017),” Crowell said. “You are always trying to get six or seven people to agree. Then they switch in the middle of the discussion or discuss things that aren’t in the guidelines.”

Keeping meetings on point and strictly focused on the guidelines is a major suggestion of the Design Overlay Zone Assessment (DOZA), which is intended to streamline the development review process.

Suggestions in the final DOZA report included imposing new thresholds of when projects would have to go through the full review process. Smaller projects would go through Type II reviews requiring only staff approval.

The report also suggested revising community design guidelines and narrowing the focus. That suggestion met with Wark’s approval.

“We need to simplify the design guidelines with the same level of flexibility,” he said. “The biggest things to aid the process are the design guidelines need to be updated and the community standards need to be updated.”

The report also suggested looking at adding a commission for areas outside of the Central City. That proposal got a mixed reaction.

“It sounds like a good idea, but then you get into all kinds of specifics,” Wark said. “How do you find seven qualified people consistently? How is it set up? We’re open to something refined.”

It could also affect the way that city staff does its job. Currently, the BDS staff manages cases seen by both the design and landmarks commissions.

“It’s a lot of work,” Fioravanti said. “It would be managing with seven more people and would be very important to coordinate among the two commissions.”

Stephanie Fitzhugh, a project manager at DiLoreto Architecture, said that long waits to appear before the city’s commissions are adding to delays and increased project costs.

“Everybody is feeling it; everyone is frustrated,” she said. “Basically, it comes down to: Does the city really want to prevent people from building their projects?”

The post So many projects, too little time appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The latest chapter in the saga of the Ankeny Apartments project played out Wednesday afternoon during the Portland City Council‘s meeting. The council ultimately decided to continue its hearing on developer Landon Crowell’s appeal of the Portland Design Commission‘s denial of the project.

The hearing is scheduled to resume May 11, when a final decision is expected. In the meantime, the council urged the developers, neighbors and city staffers to meet and try to hammer out an option agreeable to everyone.

The proposed L-shaped building for 1122 S.E. Ankeny St. would include 17 luxury apartments and be the city’s first and nation’s seventh net-zero-energy multifamily structure. It would produce as much or more energy than it uses.

“If Portland wants density, net zero (energy use), diversity and equity as we propagate, we have to make tough decisions,” Crowell said. “Nonetheless, we hope to find common ground with the neighborhood association and the neighbors and build Oregon’s first net zero multifamily building.”

City commissioners on Wednesday listened to nearly three hours of testimony concerning the project’s viability and adherence to design guidelines.

Neighboring residents spoke of their fears of effects the 70-foot-tall structure would have on their homes.

“We bought our house over 40 years ago,” said Priscilla Sturges, whose home at 113 S.E. 12th Ave. would fall in the shadow of the proposed building. “Now we are faced with a huge apartment complex for high-income renters. Affordable homes should not be displaced for wealthy short-termers. This borders on elder abuse.”

Other people said they see the project as the wave of the future and a way to break with ill-advised building policies of the past.

“Portland is a strong city with a vision of what its future should be,” citizen Kristen Malone said. “With so much concern placed on policies that were phased out long ago, the homes that are remaining from those policies are anchoring us to something that we have decided we don’t want to be tied to.”

City commissioners warned neighbors that limits on new building heights are set to increase to 125 feet next year. Denial of this project could lead to a taller proposal in the near future.

“It’s in the best interests of the neighbors to get to yes,” Commissioner Amanda Fritz said.

Net zero energy use would be dependent on the placement of solar cells with access to enough sunlight to produce electricity. Both the City Council and the Design Commission warned that if existing single-family homes were replaced at some point by even taller buildings, Ankeny Apartments’ net zero status would be at risk.

“This is at 75 feet, and with the new comprehensive plan (set to take effect in 2018) the height limit goes up to 125 feet,” Fritz said. “Keeping the single-family homes is kind of necessary for your design. If those were to go, and a 125-foot building was to be put there, it would change your access. In 10 years are we going to be hearing from this developer that someone is taking their sunlight?”

Though that could be an issue, said Bob Zimmerman, an architect with project designer Yost Grube Hall Architecture, the development team believes photovoltaic cells at that time will be advanced enough to compensate for any reduction of incoming sunlight.

The project has been a source of controversy since it was proposed in February 2016. The project team appeared before the Design Commission five times, the most recent slightly more than two months ago, when the proposal was denied for failing to meet the city’s design guidelines.

“We work very hard to get to yes,” Design Commission Chairman David Wark said. “This is the first Type III review that was denied in my time on the board, and it was unanimous.”

The council was highly appreciative of the project team’s efforts to achieve net zero energy use, but acknowledged issues with the design and location.

“This is almost a perfect storm,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said. “It’s almost two worlds colliding. This is the kind of development the city has been trying to encourage particularly close in. I love this project as it is a nod to the future, and I hate it represents rapid change. We are somewhat wistful as to what we are leaving behind.”

The post Ankeny Apartments project appeal extended appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Developers behind the proposed Ankeny Apartments project, at 1122 S.E. Ankeny St., between 11th and 12th avenues, will have to wait another week to make their appeal to the Portland City Council. Developer Landon Crowell and YGH Architecture officials are set to state on April 12 why the Portland Design Commission was wrong in its decision to deny the proposal. The case was originally scheduled to go before the council on April 5.

The Design Commission reviewed the project a fifth time on Jan. 19. When it became obvious that the commission wouldn’t approve the proposal, the team asked for a vote of denial with the intention of appealing the decision to the City Council.

The design team’s proposal calls for a six-story, L-shaped building with 17 one- or two-bedroom residential units. The developer’s goal is to build the first multifamily complex to be net zero for energy use.

The complex has encountered opposition from neighbors who fear the 70-foot-tall complex would shroud their homes in shadows. They also complained to the commission about the proposed structure’s proximity to the property line.

The commission denied the project because of a variety of issues, including its use of unifying elements, respect for adjacent residences and design coherency.

The post Multifamily project hearing rescheduled appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Portland Design Commission on Thursday got its first look at a proposal for a seven-story mixed-use building at 1331 N.W. 17th Ave.

The project is designed by GBD Architects to hold six floors of studios, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units and three-bedroom units. They will be a blend of market-rate and affordable, including 20 percent affordable at 80 percent of the median family income. Also, one live-work unit is expected to be one of the building’s best features, according to designers.

The building will also include ground-floor retail space, 97 parking spots for motor vehicles and 180 spots for bicycles. Keller Holland Pettygrove Investors LLC is listed as the project’s developer.

Plans call for the building to have a floor area ratio of 6.2 to 1 and stand 120 feet tall.

City staffers recommended the project proposal be denied because of concerns about parking and long-term bike storage, but the Design Commission took issue with other elements. The commission sent the project back for further revisions.

“This is not very welcoming,” Commissioner Don Vallaster said. “It’s very monolithic.”

Agustin Enriquez, principal architect with GBD Architects, contended that the large brick structure would fit with the character of the neighborhood.

“I think it is very common in the area to find pretty muscular buildings,” he said.

Vallaster, however, challenged the length of the proposed building, and said it was out of line with the neighborhood.

“All the examples you showed were 50-by-100 buildings,” he said, and “not 200-foot-long buildings.”

The commission acknowledged that the neighborhood is changing, but added that while the corners of the proposed structure gave it a strong modern look, other parts lacked definition.

“Everything kind of blends together,” Commission chairman David Wark said.

Commissioners also said the windows gave the building too much of a box-over-boxes-over-boxes feel.

One idea that the design team floated was adding more brick to the lower floor.

“The idea of bringing the brick down was not one that worked,” Wark said.

Commissioners said they believed the issues could be solved with more transparency and composition changes. Special features, they said, should be accentuated.

One aspect that the commissioners had no problem with was the building’s quality. The use of brick siding was something that many of the commissioners found appealing.

“The quality is there,” Wark said. “We are just talking about character and composition.”

The staff report also criticized the curb cuts on two street frontages that reduced windows and active use at ground level.

The staff report also included concerns about the location of the bicycle parking. Staffers expressed concern that its location in the underground garage would negatively impact cyclists by posing real and perceived danger. Relocation of bike parking could address that, they stated.

Designers are scheduled to return before the commission on March 9 with revisions.

Also on Thursday:

Mixed-use building

The Design Commission got its first look at a five-story townhouse project at 1825 N.W. 23rd Ave. Plans call for ground-floor retail space, 64 market-rate units and 55 underground motor vehicle parking spaces and 222 bike parking spots.

The staff report recommended denial due to a number of issues, including stormwater treatment, massing, car entryways and the location of bike parking. There were also concerns about how the building would affect pedestrians’ use of the area. Exterior lighting was another issue noted in the staff report.

The commission was somewhat split on the use of the stucco siding. Some members expressed concern about the permanence and staining of the stucco; however, most commissioners said they believe the siding is a good material that has been used on other projects.

The commission also discussed the location of a utility door and transformer before sending the project back to Works Progress Architecture for more design revisions.

The project is scheduled to return before the commission on Feb. 16.

Ankeny Apartments

Another meeting for the Ankeny Apartments ended with a denial by the Design Commission, by a 5-0 vote. The city staff report had included a recommendation that the proposal be denied.

Developers plan to appeal the decision to the Portland City Council within the next two weeks.

Plans call for a six-story, L-shaped building designed by Yost Grube Hall Architecture. It would include 17 market-rate apartments, ground-floor retail space, three motor vehicle parking spots and 15 bike parking spots.

This was the project’s fifth appearance before the Design Commission. The proposal was on the verge of being denied in previous hearings before developers and YGH Architecture decided to make revisions in an attempt to gain the commission’s approval.

The developers made clear that they intend to appeal any denial, but previously expressed hope that they could secure approval by modifying the building height and a party wall. However, the commission made equally clear that it wasn’t comfortable with the design, despite the revisions.

The post Mixed-use projects fail to make the cut appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.