The Portland Design Commission has reapproved a proposal to build a 23-story tower, the Hyatt Place and Allison Residences, in the Pearl District. The City Council – in a rare move – had remanded the project to the Design Commission on Sept. 26.

Design commissioners voted 4-0 on Thursday to return their recommendation to the City Council, which is now scheduled to hold a hearing on the project, and an initial vote, on Dec. 10.

The project from Seattle multifamily developer Vibrant Cities and hotelier The Sunray Companies of Madison, Mississippi, is for a quarter-block property at 350 N.W. 12th Ave., where a parking lot sits currently. As designed by Otak Inc., the building would have 160 hotel rooms and 113 residential units in 197,118 square feet.

The building’s proposed height of 250 feet is the tallest allowed by Central City 2035 plan guidelines. As larger buildings allowed by the 2035 plan have rolled out, residents of neighborhoods such as the Pearl District and Goose Hollow have often reacted with opposition.

Throughout the design process, the Hyatt Place and Allison Residences project has been opposed by Pearl Neighbors for Integrity in Design, a group of nearby residents and business owners. The nonprofit is not affiliated with the city-sanctioned Pearl District Neighborhood Association.

PNID representatives have characterized the project as too large for the property, and its use too intensive, with residents and hotel guests constantly entering and exiting.

Thursday’s hearing revealed several design changes made in response to direction from City Council. The middle of the building was pulled back 3 feet from the property line. The hotel entrance at the corner of Northwest 12th Avenue and Flanders Street was pulled back a total of 7 feet from the property line, providing more room for the public realm, said Gary Larson, an Otak consultant architect. Canopies were extended around the building. A cornice was lowered by one floor.

“Our objective has been to reduce the mass of the building through the setback strategy and reduce the apparent height of the building through the cornice line adjustments,” Larson said.

Carrie Richter, a land-use lawyer representing PNID, said the group remains disappointed with the minimal revisions.

“My client is truly disheartened by the lack of fundamental change that went into this remand,” she said.

But the Hyatt Place and Allison Residences would not be out of place in the Pearl District, where buildings are commonly built to property lines, Commissioner Zari Santner said.

“Pearl has a very, very eclectic identity,” she said. “This building would be a great addition to that.”

Commissioner Sam Rodriguez also complimented the design.

“I think the changes are positive and it will turn out to be a good building,” he said.

When the proposal returns to the City Council in December, the council will still be in the lame-duck period following the Nov. 3 election. Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who expressed concerns with the project, is likely to weigh in on the Hyatt Place and Allison Residences before she’s replaced in January by Carmen Rubio. Commissioner Chloe Eudaly also will still be on the council, and not newly elected Mingus Mapps.

If the design is approved by the City Council, opponents could potentially appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals or District Court.

The post Portland Design Commission still says yes appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Portland City Council is considering adoption of an amended Central City 2035 Plan after it was remanded by state regulators.

Historic preservationists successfully challenged the zoning overhaul, which called for increasing height limits in some areas, including 10 blocks in Old Town Chinatown in Northwest Portland. It also called for decreasing height limits on some properties, typically to preserve views of Mount Hood or the Willamette River.

The state Land Use Board of Appeals remanded the ordinance in August 2019, saying the city’s findings were inadequate to support the higher height limits in Old Town Chinatown. LUBA‘s remand forced the city to explain how the taller maximum heights “preserve and complement historic resources,” as required by the city’s comprehensive plan.

Restore Oregon and a coalition of Old Town Chinatown organizations challenged Guardian Real Estate‘s plans to build on Block 33, which under Central City 2035 zoning would have a 200-foot height limit with bonuses.

In January, the state Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA’s analysis in a lawsuit brought by Restore Oregon and various other groups.

The City Council received two hours of public testimony on Thursday, but did not vote. The written record was held open until 5 p.m. on June 4. The council is tentatively scheduled to vote on amended findings on July 2, with a final vote the following week.

Pearl Neighbors for Integrity in Design has pushed for the City Council to hold off on adoption until after November elections, when a new slate of commissioners will be seated.

The post Modified zoning overhaul under review appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A controversial proposal for a 23-story mixed-use building won tentative approval from the Portland Design Commission on Thursday despite opposition from Pearl District neighbors.

Commissioners voted 6-0 (Chairwoman Julie Livingston recused herself) to approve the design by Otak Inc. They will hold a final vote on Jan. 16 to adopt findings on the project.

The Hyatt Place and Allison Residences project would bring 160 hotel rooms and 113 residential units to a quarter-block site at Northwest 12th Avenue and Flanders Street. The building would replace a surface parking lot.

The 197,118-square-foot project is a joint venture of Seattle multifamily developer Vibrant Cities and hotelier The Sunray Companies of Madison, Mississippi. The project was valued at $66 million by the city’s Bureau of Development Services.

Plans were scrutinized by the Design Commission in two previous advice meetings and two review hearings, most recently in November.

Pearl District residents have objected to the project for months, lodging concerns about the planned height, mass and density for the small footprint. At 250 feet, it would be by far the tallest building in the south Pearl District under higher limits established by the Central City 2035 Plan.

Commissioners, city staffers and residents have also expressed concerns that traffic from the hotel and residential development would conflict with plans for the – a future path between the waterfront and Northwest Portland that would pass next to the building.

Commissioners did not directly address the largest issues. They said the building’s height and mass were within the zoning rules, giving the design panel little leeway, and potential traffic conflicts were an issue for the Portland Bureau of Transportation to resolve.

“The context issues – height and massing – are not something we can deal with anyway,” Commissioner Don Vallaster said.

The design has improved over time, Commissioner Zari Santner said.

“They have really done a great job of making the building far more coherent than it first was when it came to us,” she said.

Most recently, Otak incorporated warmer colors into the exterior palette and raised water fountains at the entrance. After objections from neighbors, the valet zone was moved from Flanders Street to 12th Avenue.

The Pearl District Neighborhood Association registered opposition to the project, as did the Pearl Neighbors for Integrity in Design – a private group that is distinct from the city-sanctioned association.

The neighborhood association, in a letter, objected to design elements such as metal cladding and the “near-blank wall” appearance of the east facade.

Bateman Seidel’s Carrie Richter, a land-use attorney for PNID, attempted to speak to the commission on Thursday. Commissioners declined to hear her testimony, saying the record was closed.

Patricia Cliff, president of PNID, said the building would bring intense use to the intersection, with valet parking and two loading docks competing with traffic from two neighboring residential buildings and the planned bikeway.

“It is not a user-friendly building, and it could be potentially dangerous for pedestrians, drivers and bicyclists,” she said.

Also on Thursday:

No vote yet on hotel project’s design

The Design Commission tackled review for the Proper Hotel, another Pearl District project at Northwest 12th Avenue and Irving Street.

Commissioners identified some issues with a vertical column, and a lack of a water feature. However, they were largely complimentary of the design for a nine-story building with approximately 170,000 square feet.

Past projects have met design guidelines for a water feature reflecting Tanner Creek with everything from poetry to sound. Commissioner Jessica Molinar said future projects should include water features that incorporate actual water.

“It’s not a deal-breaker this time, but it will be a deal-breaker for me in the future,” she said. “Please do not come back with another project that does not include an actual water feature.”

The project is being designed by ZGF Architects for Proper Hospitality, a Santa Monica, California-based company with hotels in California and Texas.

Commissioners did not vote whether to approve the project; the hearing is set to continue on Jan. 23.

The post Contentious project on verge of approval appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the early returns for Portland’s eco-roofs standard, following the rule is the exception.

Of four Central City projects subject to the city’s eco-roofs rules since the standard took effect in July 2018, only one has met the standard. One was approved by the Portland Design Commission with a much smaller eco-roof atop the podium, and requests for significant modifications of the rule are being made for two others.

In baseball, hitting 1-for-4 is about league average. In city planning, it could be an early warning sign that the rule is either infeasible, or that the city is unwilling or unable to enforce it via the design review process.

“I think it’s a concern for the city,” said Benjamin Nielsen, a senior planner for the Bureau of Development Services. “Developers are having a hard time with some of the requirements of the standard, particularly when solar panels are involved.”

So far, the only project to meet the city’s eco-roofs standard comes from the city of Portland and three partners. The seven-story Fourth and Montgomery project, also known as the Jasmine Block, is under construction in south downtown with an eco-roof that meets the city’s rules. The project will provide space for the city, Portland State University,��Oregon Health & Science University�����Ի���Portland Community College. SRG Partnership designed the building, and Mayer/Reed is the landscape architect. The roof includes solar panels.

The eco-roofs standard took effect last summer as part of the Central City 2035 Plan. Incorporated into Title 33 of city code, the standard requires eco-roofs on new Central City buildings of 20,000 square feet of net area or more within certain zoning.

Eco-roofs are intended to convey several benefits. They reduce urban heat islands, manage stormwater, improve air quality and provide habitat for birds, pollinators and plants.

To meet the standard, at least 60 percent of the roof area must be devoted to eco-roof features, as defined by the Bureau of Environmental Services. The remainder may be occupied by mechanical equipment, solar panels, wind turbines and other items.

Portland’s eco-roofs standard was modeled after Toronto’s, said Mindy Brooks, a city planner with the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

Portland’s standard has roots in an earlier, voluntary program. Developers could earn bonus height in exchange for eco-roofs. The Central City 2035 Plan rolled back that bonus, among others, in favor of concentrating on affordable housing incentives. Eco-roofs were made mandatory.

The trend of project teams requesting modifications for eco-roofs bears watching, Brooks said.

“I think we need to continue to monitor it and see how it goes,” she said. “We’ve had a couple of very unique (projects) be the first ones out of the gate. So it’ll be important to monitor and see how it proceeds.”

Architects and developers have approached the standard in different ways.

At Block 216, the Design Commission agreed to a modification that places the eco-roof atop only the terraced podium, and not the 35-story tower. The Block 216 eco-roof will cover only 33 percent of the roof area, far below the 60 percent minimum.

GBD Architects is designing the project. Before the Design Commission, architects from GBD argued the wind forces at the tower’s 460-foot height would make an eco-roof unworkable and perhaps unsafe, with the potential for soils and plants to be blown afar. Two design commissioners said an exception to the eco-roof standard may be necessary for towers.

GBD did not respond to interview requests.

City officials are researching how eco-roofs can be built atop towers. The bureaus of Planning and Sustainability, Development Services and Environmental Services are looking into how high winds affect tower eco-roofs, and will issue guidance to future project teams.

It may just be a matter of more complex engineering, Brooks said.

“We did some quick research and did not find wind shear at high altitudes being a problem for eco-roofs,” Brooks said. “At high altitudes, engineering becomes more complex, just as anything does at that altitude.”

Brooks said the city wants to get it right before issuing any guidance.

“We heard what (the architects) said and we want to make sure whatever guidance we provide is appropriate,” she said.

Bora Architects is proposing an entirely different solution at Lincoln High School. The project team proposes to meet the standard at ground level, with plantings. The standard would be met with 63,600 square feet of landscaped areas.

At a May design advice meeting, Bora Architects principal Christopher Linn said ground cover performs better as a heat and carbon sink, and requires less maintenance, than an eco-roof.

“I think we have a proposal that better meets the intent of the guidelines than putting planting on the roof,” Linn told the Design Commission. He did not respond to interview requests from the 91��Ƶ.

Some commissioners said they were amenable to the proposed ground-cover solution.

“I’m OK on the (green roof) modification,” Commissioner Sam Rodriguez said. “I believe it is meeting the intent to some extent.”

Brooks, in an interview, said Bora’s approach “could be appropriate” if it goes beyond the minimum standard, and fulfills the stormwater-management and heat-reduction functions.

The team proposing the five-story PAE Living Building at Southwest First Avenue and Pine Street is also seeking a modification to the eco-roofs standard. ZGF Architects is pursuing Living Building Challenge certification, which requires 75 percent roof coverage by solar panels.

“Eco-roof beneath the panels would not be viable, as the required strategy to maximize on-site production necessitates a flat array of panels, without spacing: thus the eco-roof would not get adequate light or rainfall,” ZGF wrote in its application for a modification.

The Historic Landmarks Commission is set to review the PAE Living Building on Monday. The requested modification on the agenda is simply stated: “To not provide the required eco-roof.”

The post Portland eco-roofs standard presenting challenges appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

An unremarkable quarter-block surface parking lot in Portland’s Pearl District seems an unlikely place for a project proposal to cause a neighborhood controversy.

Yet it has. A group, the Pearl Neighbors for Integrity in Design, has formed to fight plans by Seattle developer Vibrant Cities to build a 23-story Hyatt Place hotel and residential tower at Northwest 12th Avenue and Flanders Street.

At a recent Portland Design Commission meeting, neighbors paraded around the hearings room with hand-painted pictures of a maple tree at the site they want to preserve. One resident, Patricia Cliff, who started the opposition group, called the project “vertical sprawl.”

The Hyatt Place project is the first Pearl District proposal to enter the city’s design hearings process under the Central City 2035 zoning rules that raised height limits. The zoning changes enacted by the City Council in June 2018 raised the height limit at the property, including bonuses, from 175 feet to 250 feet.

The 250-foot-tall proposal offers a glimpse of the Pearl District’s future under the new zoning rules. It’s part of a broad policy choice, backed by Mayor Ted Wheeler and other city leaders, planners and urbanists, to encourage dense development in Portland’s urban core.

“Compared to a lot of American cities, we’re not that tall and that dense,” said Troy Doss, Central City planner for the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. “For us to achieve our employment goals and our density goals for the Central City, we need to get the most out of the land.”

It’s not going over well in the Pearl.

“It’s a monstrous building,” said Cliff, a real-estate consultant and neighborhood preservationist.

Cliff painted the project as an attempt to maximize private profits at the expense of the neighborhood’s character.

“If all of these carpetbagger out-of-town developer people buy something and air rights, then you’ve got 23-story buildings all over the south Pearl,” she said.

Cliff objects to the proposed dual uses – hotel and residential – and lack of parking. She would not object to a smaller tower of about 12 stories, she said.

The higher height limits allows the Hyatt Place building to include approximately 110 residential units, including a to-be-determined number of rent-restricted inclusionary housing units, said Brian Fleener, vice president and director of architecture at Otak Inc., the Portland firm designing the building. When first proposed, the building had only 12 stories, all dedicated to the hotel.

Opposition to the Hyatt Place project follows the 2018 fight over the Fremont Apartments, a 17-story tower that survived an appeal by the Pearl District Neighborhood Association. It’s unlikely to appeal the Hyatt Place project if approved by the Design Commission, said Stan Penkin, the group’s president.

“The building, as far as the height goes, meets code,” he said.

Unlike the Pearl District Neighborhood Association, the Pearl Neighbors for Integrity in Design is not a city-recognized neighborhood group and cannot appeal Design Commission approval to the City Council.

The neighborhood association opposed the Fremont Apartments design because of the building’s proximity to the Willamette River and a pedestrian greenway, and its position blocking bridge views, Penkin said.

Penkin, who like Cliff came to Portland from New York, said he does not object to tall buildings in the right locations. Resistance to the changing skyline in the Pearl District is not a case of not-in-my-backyard, or NIMBY, politics, he said.

“Being a neighborhood person and a city person, I’m concerned about the larger context,” he said. “It’s easy to call somebody a NIMBY. But I also think there’s nothing wrong with not wanting the character of your neighborhood changed. If that makes you a NIMBY, fine.”

The Hyatt Place proposal could proceed next to a formal design review hearing, or Vibrant Cities could opt for another advice meeting. The developer did not return messages seeking comment.

The building would stand near several residential high-rises, including The Casey, The Louisa and The Henry. Those buildings are all nearly 175 feet tall. There are even taller buildings at the Pearl District’s northern edge, including NV and the Cosmopolitan.

Demand to live in Portland’s urban core is strong, amid a long economic expansion, healthy job creation and in-migration. At the same time, Oregon’s system of urban growth boundaries contributes to a need to accommodate building within them.

Downtown Portland seems to be seeping into both the Pearl District and Goose Hollow – both neighborhoods adjacent to downtown that have seen an explosion of growth.

“We’re an extension of downtown,” Penkin said.

Goose Hollow’s neighborhood group did not object to a 21-story residential tower that received Design Commission approval in November.

The Pearl District is undergoing a natural progression from the initial residential wave of rehabilitated two-story warehouses, to a generation of mid-rise condo towers, to today’s high-rises, said Joe Cortright, an economist and writer on urban growth.

“There’s clearly demand for it,” he said. “From an economic perspective, there’s a really strong desire that people have for great urban environments. The Pearl District in particular is a very desirable place to live, and more people want to live there than we have housing for. As a practical matter, the only way to provide more housing there is to build up.”

The post Potential skyline change discomforts neighborhood appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Portland City Council voted Wednesday to adopt the Central City 2035 plan, culminating years of work with a sweeping plan that will set rules for future development, including allowable building heights.

As the plan moved close to adoption, a rift developed among commissioners regarding allowable heights on the property adjacent to Lan Su Chinese Garden in Old Town-Chinatown.

The maximum height on that property was lowered from 400 feet under old rules to 200 feet in the Central City 2035 plan, but some commissioners wanted it lowered further to 125 feet. Allowable heights vary from 100 feet to 460 feet on nearby blocks.

Commissioner Amanda Fritz said the allowed height undermines years of work to protect the Chinatown/Japantown Historic District. She added that the development guidelines violate city policies meant to preserve historic resources. Fritz said future buildings could shade the garden, making plants unable to grow and koi fish unable to survive in the garden’s ponds.

“The time to protect Lan Su Chinese Garden for sure was now,” she said.

Mayor Ted Wheeler bristled at the suggestion the allowed height will hurt the garden, saying he proposed to his wife there.

“We are more than reducing by half the height, and yet I am being told I am destroying an important historic asset in this city,” Wheeler said. “I don’t buy it, not for a second. Nor should you.”

Commissioner Chloe Eudaly said she did not want to restrict development potential on the block.

“I think it’s in the best interest of the neighborhood and the businesses down there for the development potential of this site to be maximized while protecting the garden,” she said.

Commissioners also approved a measure to require a master plan in certain portions of RiverPlace. NBP Capital has requested a master plan for a series of towers in the area of Southwest Portland.

As part of the 2035 package, commissioners also adopted a concept report for the Green Loop, a proposal to make biking and walking easier downtown and in the Central Eastside through measures such as protected bike lanes and enhanced pedestrian crossings.

“We are growing as a city; we cannot stop the growth,” Wheeler said. “People are going to continue to come here. This is going to continue to be a bigger city. But we acknowledged there are better places than others for height and density.”

The post Portland adopts 2035 plan appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Beam Development is looking to build a trio of industrial office buildings to further cement the Central Eastside Industrial District‘s future as a home for creative jobs.

Beam was selected in May by Prosper Portland as preferred developer for the ODOT blocks – three parcels along Southeast Water Avenue. The Oregon Department of Transportation retains the western portion of each block.

Beam Development founder Brad Malsin and his son, fellow principal Jonathan Malsin, said they envision each block holding one building. Two would be mid-rise buildings, likely topping out at six stories. The ground floors may become hubs for light manufacturing or “maker” space, and be topped by five floors of creative office space.

Each building would include up to 5,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space, likely for food and beverage. Each building is allowed to have up to 5,000 square feet of traditional office space, according to zoning under the proposed Central City 2035 plan; the City Council is slated to adopt the plan this week.

The middle building may include structured parking that could be owned by Prosper Portland, although plans for the ODOT blocks are in an early stage.

“We feel there’s that opportunity to work to the benefit of the city, to the benefit of the district, to the benefit of the businesses and the community at large,” Brad Malsin said.

Developers are flooding the Portland market with office space in response to strong employment growth. Construction crews were building more than 1 million square feet of offices during the first quarter of 2018, according to Jones Lang LaSalle. And new proposals keep coming, such as Platform – planned as a half-block building with seven stories of offices. That project from local developer Project^ recently received rave reviews in its debut before the Portland Design Commission. Meanwhile, Intrinsic Ventures of California envisions two potential creative-office buildings for the Lower Division neighborhood.

Rents for new construction have risen and pre-leasing has been strong. The Towne Storage building, converted into offices via an adaptive reuse project, fetched a local record $630 per square foot when it sold in April to CBRE Global Investors.

Beam Development will look to lease space in the ODOT blocks to a mix of large and small companies, the executives said. The firm hopes to lease the space to employers, and perhaps avoid adding to the surge of co-working space from fast-growing chains such as WeWork and CENTRL.

Beam seeks to differentiate from other office projects being delivered, Jonathan Malsin said. Industrial or manufacturing space could give users access to lab equipment or machinery.

Parking will play a major role in ODOT blocks development. Prosper Portland, in its request for proposals, asked for twice as much parking as office space. Beam’s proposal falls short of that, but the developer is looking to contribute a significant number of spaces.

“We are motivated to try to solve some of the parking constraints in the district at large,” Brad Malsin said. “I can’t tell you how many spots we’re going to be able to offer and what’s going to make sense, but we certainly want to address the fact that there’s a major parking shortage for the foreseeable future.”

Hacker and Mackenzie are on board to design the project. Colas Construction will serve as general contractor. It’s possible the three buildings will be built in phases, Jonathan Malsin said.

The buildings may be designed with mass-timber frames and concrete diaphragms and cores, he said.

The blocks are along Water Avenue between Taylor and Madison streets. The developable parcels are 34,809 square feet, 34,862 square feet and 25,601 square feet, respectively.

Prosper Portland paid $2.485 million for the ODOT blocks. ODOT acquired the properties decades ago as part of the right of way for Interstate 5. The state agency will retain those portions of the property for the foreseeable future, a spokesman said.

ODOT considers the site useful for managing water runoff from I-5. And it could come in handy if the agency at some later date decides to widen I-5.

“That’s always a possibility,” ODOT spokesman Don Hamilton said. “There’s nothing in the works on that right now.”

The post Preparing to build up a few blocks appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A Seattle-based developer plans to build up to 1,200 housing units at the site of a PepsiCo facility bottling plant off of Sandy Boulevard, in Northeast Portland.

Security Properties recently announced it purchased the 4.7-acre site from PepsiCo. The property’s size gives the developer the flexibility to respond to changing markets during a build-out phase that could last several years.

“In general, we think the property provides an opportunity for a pretty wide variety of uses,” said John Marasco, chief development officer at Security Properties.

Housing is a likely focus for the developer, which has built several projects in Portland.

“The housing, we think, is a no-brainer,” Marasco said. “That’s what we do. We’re a housing developer, primarily.”

Security may reintroduce streets within the superblock to encourage movement within the property.

“We will re-establish what used to be a circulation grid there so we can break that site into smaller chunks,” Marasco said. “I really think we can create a village off of Sandy that will be cool.”

The property is located at 2505 N.E. Pacific St., just off of Sandy Boulevard. The purchase price was not disclosed and has not yet been recorded in Multnomah County records.

Developers such as Guerrilla Development, Koz Development and Urban Development Group have brought more apartment units to Sandy Boulevard, a broad corridor that was long associated with industrial businesses and auto shops. As much of Northeast Portland has gentrified with luxury apartments, Sandy Boulevard has increasingly attracted developers’ attention as an underdeveloped street.

Marasco said Security expects Portland’s multifamily housing market to continue to be buttressed by strong job growth. Also, more residents are renting homes rather than buying them, boosting demand for apartments, he said.

A boutique grocery store is a possibility for the property as well, he said. A Fred Meyer store and a New Seasons store are within a mile of the property.

Offices are another possibility, Marasco said. The site is not far from what’s becoming an office corridor in Portland’s Central Eastside. The PepsiCo site’s proximity to Providence medical facilities may make health care offices an attractive use, he said.

PepsiCo’s use of the site had become increasingly incongruous with its neighbors. Complaints about the truck traffic from outbound soda deliveries have grown louder, and the value of the land has grown along with Portland’s bustling market.

Also, the site is smaller than most of PepsiCo’s modern distribution facilities, which tend to be 10 to 15 acres.

“The facility in general – even though it’s significant at 5 acres – it does not represent their model for distribution,” Marasco said. “You put that together with what the market’s doing in Portland, it provides an opportunity for them to realize a significant value on that property.”

The fate of a mid-century modern office building has not been decided, Marasco said. The building, designed by Scott & Payne, was included in the city’s 1984 Historic Resource Inventory as a significant example of “Fifties modern” architecture.

“We haven’t studied it in any detail, but we agree it’s a cool building,” Marasco said. “Again, a development of the size we’re talking about, there certainly could be a spot where it could be relocated – or maybe it stays where it is. So we’re going to take a hard look at how that can be incorporated in the site.”

The development stands to be the first project to go through a large-site master plan after implementation of the city’s Central City 2035 plan, which is scheduled to be adopted by the City Council early next year.

Security Properties is interested in moving quickly. If permits can be secured, the firm plans to begin construction in the first quarter of 2018, Marasco said.

The post Northeast Portland redevelopment could add hundreds of housing units appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

An Oregon Department of Transportation plan to widen Interstate 5 at the Rose Quarter is attracting scrutiny as Portland’s City Council prepares to enact the Central City 2035 plan.

A coalition of activists wants the city to reject the ODOT project, fearing it will repeat the mistakes of the past that favored vehicle transportation ahead of walking, biking and mass transit. Some are urging congestion pricing – tolls meant to reduce traffic during peak commuting times.

They’ve started to gain some traction. Commissioner Dan Saltzman, in a statement posted Thursday, said he backs installing tolls, which he called “value pricing,” before the project begins.

“Value pricing is a proven congestion and carbon reduction strategy, and it is an essential part of the project,” Saltzman said.

The $450 million project would add auxiliary lanes to smooth merging of vehicles on and off the freeway between Interstate 84 and Interstate 405.

It also would add shoulders to allow drivers to move their vehicles out of the way following a collision. Fender benders in this stretch greatly worsen congestion because of a lack of space for drivers to pull over, ODOT says. The corridor has the highest crash rate in the state, according to the agency.

The I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Plan has been significantly narrowed from earlier ideas to add braided ramps and additional lanes. The current project is more in line with Portland’s goals to reduce congestion and boost alternatives to driving, Saltzman said.

The project calls for an overpass for pedestrians and bicyclists at Northeast Clackamas Street and other improvements. Opponents say the plan would double down on car-centric design that creates more problems than it solves.

“Expanding urban freeways has never solved a congestion problem,” said Joe Cortright, an economist and director of City Observatory, a website that focuses on urban issues.

Cortright gave the example of a 23-lane freeway in Houston that has continued to see increased trip times despite repeated expansions. The problem, he said, is a concept called “induced demand” – wider freeways generate more traffic and encourage sprawl.

Chris Smith, a Portland planning commissioner and member of No More Freeway Expansions, a local group founded to fight the I-5 project, said congestion pricing must be implemented first.

“We believe it’s irresponsible to design a project before knowing what effect congestion pricing is going to have,” he said.

Opponents of the project have drawn on Portland’s rejection in the late 1960s and early 1970s of the Mount Hood Freeway, which would have segmented much of Southeast Portland. But the I-5 Rose Quarter project is much smaller in scope.

“I don’t view this as being a massive widening,” said Nolan Lienhart, director of planning and urban design at ZGF Architects, which was involved in early project plans. The project includes “positive changes” for the surface street system, he said.

The I-5 project follows years of work on the Portland North/Northeast Quadrant Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in 2012.

More public testimony on the plan will be accepted at a second City Council hearing Thursday.

The I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project is a transportation priority in the Central City 2035 plan, an omnibus document that sets the stage for zoning Portland’s core. It’s the first comprehensive update of Portland zoning since 1988, and covers everything from building heights and density to views of Mount Hood and requirements for bird-friendly windows.

A vote to adopt the Central City 2035 Plan is expected on Jan. 18, 2018.

The post Anti-freeway activists push Portland to reconsider project to widen I-5 appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

David Leiken has some big ideas for the Roseland Theater half-block that he has owned for more than 20 years.

The property along Burnside Street is zoned for a maximum height of 460 feet, and he has considered joining with an adjacent property owner, David Gold, to build something big – a hotel, or apartments or condos – atop the historic music venue.

He’s also been approached about the property by major national firms, and at age 69, he’s ready to make a move. “In the next five to 10 years, something’s going to happen down here,” he said.

But planning is on hold for now as Leiken battles with the city of Portland, which is proposing to reduce the allowable height to 250 feet as part of the Central City 2035 plan.

Leiken is one of several property owners who are protesting height reductions in the Central City 2035 plan, a major zoning code rewrite that is wending its way toward approval this fall by the City Council.

They object that the proposed maximum height changes essentially pick winners and losers, block by block. The difference to a property owner could be millions of dollars.

Leiken said the area along Burnside has endured tough times and deserves greater consideration from city officials.

“There used to be at any one time of the day 10 to 15 crack dealers on the corner,” Leiken said. “And we’ve lived through that, and it’s over. And I feel like this area has been treated as a stepchild by the city for years and years and years.”

City officials are seeking to balance the desires of local residents, many of whom favor lower allowable heights to preserve their views, with developers, property owners and others who stand to financially benefit from taller buildings with more revenue-producing square footage.

Residents of the Goose Hollow and West End neighborhoods have been especially vocal about reduced views of Mount Hood and East Portland.

The Central City 2035 plan comes as booming demand for office and residential space has filled the development pipeline. At the same time, Portland is facing an influx of new residents and a growing push for greater density.

For Leiken, he’s galled by the looming change that would reduce the allowable height on his property by 46 percent. To make matters more absurd from his perspective, the Roseland Theater block is directly across Burnside from the U.S. Bancorp Tower, better known as Big Pink, the second-tallest skyscraper in Portland at 536 feet.

Leiken doesn’t understand why the Roseland Theater property and surrounding blocks north of Burnside were singled out for lower heights.

“Basically they drew a line and said, here’s 460 (feet maximum) and here’s 250,” he said. “And we had always been 460 before.”

Leiken said there’s no doubt that if the height changes go through as proposed, he will see the city in court. “Nobody wants to get in litigation with the city of Portland, but at some point if they’re going to treat you differently than everybody else, that’s what ends up happening,” he said.

Leiken’s lawyer, Carrie Richter of Garvey Schubert Barer’s Portland office, has submitted a detailed letter to the Planning and Sustainability Commission.

Others are protesting as well. One property owner described in public testimony the height changes as a governmental “taking” of property value without compensation.

Leiken bought the Roseland in 1995 for about $1.4 million. He estimates he spent an additional $750,000 on a seismic retrofit and other renovations.

Gold owns the neighboring property at 19 N.W. Fifth Ave., as well as other buildings in the area. He said the proposed 250-foot height limit could limit the possibilities for the site amid a booming development economy.

“We’re closer to having a demand for that type of height than we’ve had for the last 30 years,” he said. “That proposal cuts it out before we know if it’s feasible or not.”

The proposed height limits came about after six years of discussion as part of the city’s quadrant plans, said Rachael Hoy, a senior planner and Central City team leader at the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. The process included meetings with stakeholder advisory groups.

Yet some property owners are hearing about the changes only now after drafts of the Central City 2035 plan were posted publicly and reached public hearings.

In Leiken’s case, he said he was aware of the planning process, but was repeatedly told he had nothing to worry about, until he did. The city’s plan also limits lucrative transfers of floor-to-area bonuses in certain blocks.

The Central City 2035 plan is now before the Planning and Sustainability Commission, which is holding a series of hearings on the wide-ranging document.

Maximum allowable heights could change through the public process, Hoy said. The commission “very well will make changes, I’m sure, to some of the staff proposals,” she said.

“This is the time to hear from the stakeholders to state their case.”

Allowable heights under the Central City 2035 plan vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and even block to block, according to a height map from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. The city’s maximum allowable height of 460 feet is available in only a relatively small section of downtown.

In many cases, height reductions were driven by view corridors, Hoy said. But in Leiken’s case, his block was reduced to 250 feet because of development patterns and the neighboring historic district.

“That’s an area where there’s not a view corridor involved,” Hoy said. “There was discussion of that area’s proximity to the historic district. His property is not in a historic district, but it’s next to one.”

The area also hasn’t seen buildings built to maximum heights, Hoy said.

“The development pattern, we’ve not seen buildings built to 460 (feet),” she said. “What we have seen – and what we’re proposing – is 250.”

In that sense, the city seems to be taking a use-it-or-lose-it approach to height limits. Richter argued against that approach in her letter to the city opposing lower height limits on the property.

“Simply because no building has been built maximizing the 460-foot height limit does not mean that the existing height limits need to be reduced,” she wrote.

The area around the Roseland Theater has many low-profile buildings with historic character, Hoy said.

“There’s just kind of an older fabric of buildings,” Hoy said. “There are some older buildings that it would be great if they were preserved.”

In contrast, the block that contains the U.S. Bancorp Tower would have its height increased to 545 feet as proposed, from the current 460-foot limit. The tower’s owner, Unico Properties, has complained that the tower’s status as a nonconforming property could pose an obstacle to refinancing or sale in the future.

Leiken and Gold have discussed options to develop their properties. They’ve noted increased interest from national developers and proposals for taller buildings throughout downtown.

Leiken said he’s discussed with architects simply building on top of the existing Roseland Theater building, preserving its use as a music venue. The building could be topped by a hotel or residential units.

“We have some, I think, very cool ideas of what we could do,” he said.

The post Central City property owners battle height limits appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.