Present: Guy Kyle, Peyton Snead, John Taylor, Meara McLaughlin, Pam
Pfiffner, Betse Thielman, Harrison Pettit, Clayton Rice, Craig Nyschens, Will
Elder, Dan DeLany, Dave Brook (Acting Secretary for this meeting)
Guests: Bryan ___, Pacific Retirement Services, Lynne Coward, and
numerous other from Holladay Park Plaza, adjacent neighbors.
Call to order: The meeting was called to order by Guy Kyle. In the interest of time no minutes or
Treasurer’s report were reviewed.
Introduction of Application Lot 8 – LU 07-166143 AP; PC #07-122610 by
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects on behalf of Holladay Park Plaza Inc. The
application seeks to amend 2 previous subdivision requests to allow a structure
75’ tall with 23 units (compared to previous applications in 1996 & 1998
approved for 20 units 65’ tall. The
application also seeks to transfer development rights (“air rights”) from the
existing Holladay Park location to enable the increased height on the 8,000 sq.
ft. lot currently zoned RH (high density residential”. Peyton explained that
the application calls for a Type III review, which provides for the most public
participation and also for appeal directly to City Council.
He
described the development of the block, including the building of 10 new
condos, which were based on certain density being achieved on the site in
question, which is undersized for the RH zone it has. Peyton reviewed the previous approvals, which include the
statement by the Hearings Officer of the 1996 application (LUR 96-01106 SU AD)
“This approval for the land division is so dependent
upon the designs for the buildings submitted, that conditions of approval will require that lots be developed in substantial
conformance with those designs.”
Peyton
indicated that since earlier applications the allowable height of RH zone had
been increased from 65 to 75’. Meara asked if the decision on this property
might set a precedent, at least for other RH zones? Peyton said probably not, since 75’ is allowed in RH. Harrison clarified that the issue before the
Board is whether the application is “in substantial conformance with previous
amendments”. John Taylor wondered if
the development was really dependent on the transfer of air rights from
Holladay Park?
Proponents: Bryan _____ of Pacific Retirement Services made an
informal presentation explaining that the need for the increased height was be
able to provide larger, 2 bedroom apartments, which are in demand at Holladay
Park. Because the occupants will be
seniors it is not expected to generate much traffic. He reminded everyone that
the applicant had met with the neighbors a number of times and modified the
design in an effort to meet the city’s parameters. Will asked about why the transfer of air rights is needed? Bonnie
Metzer, who lives in an older house on the same block, said there was an error
in which block the air rights were being transferred from. John Taylor asked if 3 units (one storey)
was make or break for the project? Bryan said “absolutely – it’s 20% of the
project”.*
Meara asked if setbacks are similar to earlier proposals? Yes.
Harrison asked what aspects of the proposal make it in “substantial
compliance”? Bryan said “because the city’s
Staff Report says so.”
Opponents: Lynne Coward, speaking as an neighbor on the block said
that the meeting “should not be necessary” since Holladay Park is an excellent
neighbor. The concern she has is a
question of scale. The designs have not
changed the number of units or the proposed height. She said that neighbors to the east will lose their sunlight
“maybe 24-7”. She described a second
opinion from Michael Harrison, former city planner, who believes that the 1996
amendments are what apply here since they were crafted when the whole block was
being laid out. Lynne reminded everyone
that the SGNA Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council calls for the blocks
between NE 16th & 17th as a step down in height from
the Lloyd District. She said that Lloyd
Place Apartments is functionally 5 stories tall (probably 65’ she guessed) and
that 7 stories (75’) can hardly be considered a step down. (The 162 NE Broadway building is also about
65’ tall.) She believes city staff did not sufficiently take the Neighborhood
Plan into account in their report.
Betse asked for clarification on the issue at hand – legal vs.
livability? Lynne said the livability
issue can be argued both ways. Harrison
asked Lynne about height? She replied
that the shadow studies done by the architect are “plan view” and don’t clearly
show that no sunlight will hit the roofs of those to the east. Lynne reminded people that the people who
bought the condos to the east in 1996 and later knew that the building on that
lot would be 60’ tall some day. She
also explained that the alley between the properties is a social area which
will be lost if such a tall building goes in.
Public Comment
Allen Schrader, resident of Holladay Park Plaza explained that he moved to
the neighborhood in 1957, but later lived in Beaverton where hw as on the
Planning Commission there. He felt that
this was a case of “dotting I’s and crossing T’s”. The real issue is livability and character of the neighborhood,
and that he felt the proposal would be a positive contribution.
Guy Lutz: resident of Holladay Park Plaza, supported the work and
concerns of Lynne Coward and the neighbors.
He felt that 60’ would be more in keeping with the neighborhood but that
he “could with the development” if it were taller.
Bonnie Metzer: owner of
the large house on the corner of NE 16th and Halsey. She was
involved in many meetings on the site, including the 1996 and 1998
hearings. She said that she believed
the 1996 decision should be the determining factor and also reminded people
about the importance of transitioning from commercial-scale of Lloyd District
to the neighborhood-scale of Sullivan’s Gulch.
Lee Perlman neighborhood activist: reminded everyone that the applicant
can appeal to City Council and that if SGNA responds they would have standing
in the appeal at no cost but if we did not then the neighbors would have to
make a private appeal by neighbors, which would be very costly.
Tim Brown (original developer of the 1996 condos) reminded everyone
that one thing driving the current design is below grade parking. Bryan (of PRS) said that underground parking
was out of the question at the site since the ramp would take away so many
parking places they’d have to go down 2 levels.
Peyon
clarified that both Pacific Retirement Services and Holladay Park Plaza are
501C3 non profit organizations. He
reminded the Board that this was a type III hearing which gives SGNA more
standing. He said that the city staff
report indicates that the street elevation must be resubmitted. He reminded the
board that the decision came down to reconciling the development with the SGNA
Neighborhood Plan. Harrison said the
Board really had 2 options: “reject with comment” or “approve with conditions”. Meara said we needed to balance density with
livability. Will mentioned a pocket
park. A friendly amendment was offered
to add the particular parcel was “very unusual for RH zone’, that the height
was substantially greater than 1998 conditions and that the proposal is not
consistent with the SGNA Neighborhood Plan as a “transition block”.
Dave
made a motion that was seconded by Clayton to approve with conditions: height
and setbacks not in conformance with neighborhood plan and that the earlier
staff reports have noted that approval is dependent on actual design of the
building. Betse questions whether it
wouldn’t be more effective to deny the application with evidence rather than
approve with conditions. John wondered
how dependent on the economy the particular design was? Peyton said he felt that “whether the project
pencils out is not particularly relevant to our decision” and that the change
in city code raising the allowable height doesn’t automatically entitle the
applicant to 75’ or they wouldn’t be transferring air rights. A vote was taken 2 in favor, 8 against, 1
abstention.
Harrison
formulated the following motion that was seconded by John Taylor:
The Sullivan’s Gulch
Neighborhoods recommends dial of the application of LU 07-166-193 with the
following evidence:
1.
Does not conform to
the Neighborhood Plan as adopted by City Council
2.
Not in substantial
conformity with the 1996 and 1998 subdivisions adjustments as relates to
height.
The
final vote was 11 yes, 1 abstain.
Adjournment – 10 pm
The
SGNA Neighborhood Plan was adopted by Portland City Council on 7/16/87. Relevant sections (page 4) concern
development on the West End of the neighborhod:
POLICY
2: WEST END
PROVIDE
AN IMPROVED TRANSITION BETWEEN LLOYD CENTER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ENCOURAGE
DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WHICH PROVIDES A SMOOTH TRANSITION TO THE
LOWER DENSITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CORE.
OBJECTIVE
2A Support new residential or mixed residential and commercial developments
between NE 15th and 16th that are oriented toward the neighborhood and
sensitive to the neighborhood character in terms of scale and style.
OBJECTIVE 2B Encourage and
support high-density residential development that is compatible with surrounding
land uses on the blocks between NE 16th and 17th.
http://sullivansgulch.org/sgna/SGPlan-pg4.htm