 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
FEATURE ARTICLES | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
120-acre retail development near the airport seeks changes to accommodate big box retail tenants
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
In December, the Portland Planning Commission approved amendments to the CascadeStation plan district that would allow big box retail in the proposed 120-acre development.
In another change, developers are hoping to provide a Fareless Square arrangement between the development’s two Red Line stations and Portland International Airport.
The Bechtel and Trammel Crow corporations gained a 99-year lease from the Port of Portland to develop the property east of the airport in exchange for contributing $28.4 million toward the creation of the Airport Red Line. Their plan was to create a massive office and retail complex, with hotels, theaters and restaurants, fronting on a park blocks. However, the project has languished for three years.
Now Bechtel, Trammel Crow and the Center Oak Corporation, as CascadeStation LLC, are seeking changes in the regulations governing their development to provide for “big box” stores at three locations, the largest up to 265,000 square feet. The area’s Plan District originally prohibited any building larger than 60,000 square feet. They also wanted to reduce the projected office and hotel component of the project.
Planning Bureau staff recommended approval of the changes while also adding stronger design requirements. These call for design review for the backs of structures facing the surface parking lots to the east and west, where the majority of visitors will come from, and additional landscape buffering. However, some of the design requirements will not apply to the big boxes.
There was no community testimony at a public hearing in late November, and the only speaker even partially critical of the project was development project manager Keith Leavitt of the Port of Portland. He said that the original deal with the developers was “a real unique public-private partnership,” and that the Port “really bought into the original concept.” However, he added, “Any change in the concept must be met with a real high level of scrutiny. We have to have a real high level of comfort about the quality of the retail uses.”
Fred Bruning of Center Oak said that to take off the project needed “something unique. We don’t want the same tenants as Gateway, certainly not the same as downtown.” However, he said, “We don’t believe we could successfully develop under the current standards. The right kinds of anchor stores have larger footprints, and the other retail is dependent on that.”
As to what the anchor would be, Bruning said that a Wal-Mart would be “a big mistake, but other kinds of club stores come to mind.”
Eric Parker of Bechtel argued that the changes were not only needed, but also needed immediately. “We started with something very positive, bringing light rail to the airport,” he said. “We would like to end on a positive note, with quality development of CascadeStation.” However, he added, “There are people in the room who are wondering whether to treat this seriously. If it isn’t, it will sit vacant for some time. I’m not a developer, but I can tell you the time is now. We have to seize the moment now.”
Commission member Rick Michaelson, one of the project’s sharpest critics on the commission, retorted, “I fundamentally disagree with that statement. We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t do the best job possible.”
At a subsequent hearing in December, Michaelson cast the sole dissenting vote against the changes. “I think this is the right solution for this site, and the right people are doing it, but I will vote no because of how it’s being done,” he said. Regulation should be done through a development agreement, he said, not by “42 pages of code for a property to be owned and managed by a private entity.” He later told the Memo, “If we treated each part of town like this, the code would be a million pages long.”
Other members were more inclined to push forward. Larry Hilderbrand said, “We tried something, it didn’t work, now we need to try something else. There are still some things I don’t like, but it’s time to move forward.” Others agreed, although both Chris Caruso and Gail Shibley pointed out that nothing in the code would ensure the quality of retail tenants over time. Commission Chairman Ethan Seltzer said, “I think this is a reasonable approach. It doesn’t do all we want, but it does a lot. It’s better suited for the site than having MAX continue to stop at a closed station. It’s a challenging project in a challenging location promising great returns.” The Portland City Council will review the changes at 2 p.m. Jan. 20 at City Hall.
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home