 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
| 122nd Avenue plan heads to City Council LEE PERLMAN THE MID-COUNTY MEMO The 122nd Avenue Project will be heard by the Portland City Council at 2 p.m. on June 15 at City Hall. The session should be yet another fight over what rules and regulations the area should contain. The proposed regulations are an attempt to reconcile transit station-area development regulations with needs of local car dealers. The existing rules call for high-density development and urban design, with buildings at the property line and limited outside parking lots. Auto dealers such as Ron Tonkin want the laws modified to meet their needs, especially outside storage. The proposal had one last session before the Portland Planning Commission in late April. The session resulted in little change to the proposal, but did indicate that there would be more attempts to change it at council. At the April meeting, Planner and Project Manager Barry Manning proposed a few minor amendments, all of which were adopted. One concerned the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for development in the area. FAR is a measure of density in relation to lot size. If a property’s FAR is 1:1, and the lot size is 10,000 square feet, an owner could build a structure with up to 10,000 square feet of floor space. This could be in a one-story building covering the lot, or a two-story building covering half the area. Existing regulations for 122nd Avenue call for a minimum FAR of 1:1, which would require very large buildings on many dealerships. The proposal at first would ease this rule for new development, additions and renovations, provided that the end result was a building larger than what was currently on the property, and that it had an FAR of at least 0.4:1. Last month Manning proposed that the minimum FAR be changed to 0.4:1. He noted that this would be greater building density than is found in any existing dealership. Brad Tonkin said the proposal “contains some improvements over current laws,” and that the industry had accepted it as “a compromise . . .we’d have to do some things differently, but we could work with it.” However, as proposed, “A few elements make it unworkable.” One of these was the size of proposed “nodes.” A centerpiece of the proposal was the maintenance of strict regulations near the intersections of East Burnside, Northeast Glisan and Southeast Stark streets, including strict limits on the exterior display of cars, while relaxing these standards between these areas. The key was the size of the nodes. At the urging of the Hazelwood Neighborhood Association, and to the chagrin of Tonkin and others, the Planning Commission drastically increased the size of the nodes. Tonkin urged them to reconsider. He also urged a change in another area. The proposal - and existing regulations - says that no more than 50 percent of a property’s street frontage can be given over to the parking or maneuvering of cars; the rest must be a building. Tonkin wanted this limit increased to 70 percent. He argued, “A long, narrow building next to the street is not what the neighborhood wants either. Display could be done so that it met our needs and the neighborhood’s needs as well.” Hazelwood had asked that the allowed percentage be reduced to 30 percent. Mark Whitlow, an attorney representing Safeway, made a surprise plea for gas pumps at the market at 221 N.E. 122nd Ave. The store has made “a 40-year commitment” to the area, he said, but without gas pumps, “It won’t be as successful.” Barbara Harrison, representing Hazelwood, called for the retention of the expanded nodes. She called for “extensive landscaping and maintenance of landscaping, not just some token plants left to live or die.” Asked about the Safeway gas pumps she said, “I shop at Safeway, so I may be prejudiced. Personally this is not something I couldn’t live with, but I’d have to take it back to my board.” Another Hazelwood board member, Gayland German, said, “We need storefront businesses to bring the community together. To have one business monopolize 122nd won’t do it.” Regarding the Safeway issue, Manning said, “This is a pedestrian district designed for pedestrian-oriented use. Auto sales are at the outer limit. I don’t see vehicle fueling as that kind of use. It’s neighborhood-serving, but not pedestrian-oriented.” Commission member Larry Hilderbrand, who had repeatedly argued for auto dealers’ positions in previous sessions, said, “I realize the dream here is for a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, but I can’t imagine Safeway customers walking there. It’s incumbent upon the city to keep up with marketing changes. It’s not a static situation. You’re trying to serve a vision that isn’t real.” In contrast, commission member Tim Smith said, “I guess I have a problem with this in a pedestrian-oriented district designed for pedestrian uses. Where do you stop - with fast food? Soon you’d lose the whole purpose of the zone. I wouldn’t vote for this.” Another member, Youlee Yim You, said, “This is an interesting discussion, but not something we should be weighing in on now.” The gas pumps were rejected, as were Tonkin’s change requests. Commission member Don Hanson said he thought the nodes “ . . . are perfect. They reflect existing conditions, they’re a link back to the neighborhoods, and they meet the neighborhood concerns.” Commission member Ingrid Stevens said, “I feel we have really gone overboard in accommodating the auto dealerships. I feel the 0.4:1 ratio is extremely generous, and the 50 percent frontage is a minimum standard.” |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home