 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
| Dealers, neighbors seek 122nd Avenue regulation changes (continued) The issues received considerable discussion before the planning commission. Don Hanson asked, “Let’s say I have a 20,000 square foot building, which is all I’ll ever need. If it burns down, can I rebuild it, or do I have to build 40,000 square feet to the meet the FAR requirements?” Barry Manning, 122nd Avenue project manager, replied that Hanson would have to meet density requirements or seek an adjustment. “It may be difficult for some folks to achieve the minimum density, but it’s been a goal for this area for some time. Lowering the FAR is lowering the bar.” Both Hanson and Paul Schlesinger said they wanted to “keep the bar high.” So did Tim Smith, who said, “There should be a menu of options, but we have a transit station here, and we need policies that support that.” Planning commission chair Ingrid Stevens said, “I agree that auto dealers on giant lots don’t need massive buildings, but I’m also concerned about the welfare of the community.” Commission member Larry Hilderbrand was an advocate for exterior display. “ I feel strongly that exterior display is an extension of the showroom,” he said. Stevens responded, “Larry, have you been out there? Walking by there is very intimidating.” “Walking by new cars?” Hilderbrand asked incredulously. “A sea of new cars,” Stevens answered. “From a pedestrian point of view, it’s very unappealing. That it’s always been that way doesn’t mean it should be.” Smith said it was important to have good pedestrian connections, and not have “nodes floating out there unconnected to the neighborhood.” Hilderbrand persisted, “I’m one of those people who likes to walk around and look at new cars. We’re not talking about downtown Portland; this is an area that’s traditionally been an auto retail street.” Lindley seemed to suggest that he felt the proposed regulations weren’t tough enough. He noted that as written, they would allow 100 continuous feet of surface parking facing the sidewalk outside the nodes. “I don’t see how you achieve urban form this way,” he said. Both Lindley and Andrew Jansky suggested encouraging dealers to build two-story showrooms, as the Wentworth family recently did with its Subaru dealership on East Burnside Street. Manning said such design was “not here yet” in terms of financial feasibility. For the same reason, Manning resisted Lindley’s call for a limit on the “floor plates” of new structures such as is now in place in the central city. “Dealers and groceries typically have large floor plates,” he said. He added, “The conditions of the central city don’t necessarily apply further out. Here we’re seeking a transition from very suburban development to a more urban form.” Lindley supported the widening of allowed building setbacks between nodes from the current 10 feet to 20, as Manning proposes. He was against widening them to 30 feet, as Fry wants. “If a property transitions from one retail use to another, do you have control over how people use these setbacks?” he asked. “When you have shiny new cars it’s okay, but when you have older cars or equipment...” Jansky said he could support limited exterior display. “One or two cars on a pedestal is infinitely preferable to a sea of cars,” he said. He was skeptical of the proposed design regulations. “A creative person could meet this code and [the result] wouldn’t be what you’re looking for,” he told Manning. “All the elements, taken together, should give us more building nearer the street,” Manning replied. The design commission is expected to complete its work on the project at a hearing beginning at 1:30 p.m. Feb. 2, with the planning commission to follow at 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 14. Both hearings will be at 1900 S.W. Fourth Ave. |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home