 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
Glisan Commons, a collaborative development effort by three non-profits planned for a 63,000 square foot lot on Northeast Glisan Street between 99th and 100th avenues, neared city approval last month. A proposed Master Plan (necessary because the project will be done in two phases) is pending before Hearings Officer Kenneth Helm. A Portland Design Commission vote was put off until June 7 but, at a hearing last month, members made it clear they favored the project. Indeed, nearly all drama associated with the project occurred outside the hearings.
In Phase I, there will be a five-story building facing Glisan Street. The non-profit Human Solutions will have 67 affordable rental units, studios and one-bedrooms, in the top four stories. Ride Connection, which provides transportation to low-income people, will have its headquarters and support services on the ground floor. An interior courtyard will provide both parking for Ride Connection's mini-buses and vans and potential areas for outdoor activities and special events. Two houses, a barn and a commercial building currently on the property will all be demolished. Planner Chris Caruso noted, “This area is zoned for large buildings, and it's gradually turning into that over time.”
In Phase II a third non-profit, REACH Community Development, will build another 60 housing units, designated for low-income seniors, on the north half of the property. The separation in time of development made the Master Plan process necessary. At the Design Commission, architect David Otte said that REACH was seeking state tax credits to help finance their building. “If they're not awarded, (REACH) will go back next year,” he said. “This is something REACH has done before, and it's the way low-income housing is done in this state.”
Six months before the project had undergone a Design Advisory session - a voluntary and informal discussion of plans prior to a formal application - with the Commission. Based on their comments, the development team made several changes. They enlarged the building's windows and “quieted down” the attention-getting treatment of some corners. They provided details of their exterior materials, which will include cast in place concrete, cement board siding, metal panels and porcelain tile.
The project also tried to accommodate a single-family house on its west side. The Phase One building steps down in height to two stories on its west side, and architect Jeff Stuhr said although there will be a roof deck, a planted area on the west side will prevent residents from looking into the adjoining yard. There is already a barrier of sorts in the form of large trees, he said, and these will be augmented with incense cedars.
This was not enough for owner Mel Fox. On his behalf, attorney Chris Koback wrote letters to both Caruso and Helm attacking the project on several fronts. He argued that the total project, at 126 units, barely met the minimum density requirements of the property's RX zoning and therefore did not meet the intent of the Gateway Urban Renewal District. He said there was no guarantee that Phase II would ever be built. He claimed that Ride Connection's parking lot was illegal in the RX zone. He complained that the Bureau of Transportation had not required a traffic study for the project. Finally, he said it would devalue the property of Fox and other neighbors. “The city paid $57 per square foot for these three parcels, yet the highest offer to Mr. Fox was $22.80 per square foot for property with the same zoning,” Koback wrote. “This is compelling evidence” that the project was reducing property values.
Before the Design Commission, Caruso noted that mini-buses and vans could legally park in an RX property, and the parking lot was accessory to the occupant's activities rather than an illegal commercial lot whose spaces are leased to outsiders. Attorney Peter Livingston of REACH responded to other statements in the Robuck letter. Referring to one ordinance Robuck cited, Livingston wrote, “As interpreted by Mr. Fox, it would allow anyone to stop a major development by saying he doesn't like it, whether his objections are reasonable or not.”
At the Master Plan hearing, one testifier, property owner Terry Foster (to the north), claimed the opposite position of attorney Koback: the project was too large.
Helm received a letter from the Gateway Urban Renewal Project Advisory Committee in support of the project.
The biggest area of concern for the Design Commission was the potential delay between Phases I and II. They urged the development team to treat the initial phase as if it would be around for a while. Some suggested minor detail changes. Overall, however, their comments were overwhelmingly positive. David Wark said, “I appreciate the effort and talent that went into this. This will be a phenomenal game changer for Gateway. It will be the model for future projects.” Chair Gwen Millius was happy that the project would “provide services [for] the people in this area.”
Fox had requested that the written record be held open to seven days to allow for more written testimony. By law, such a request must be honored, and it delayed a vote until June 7. However, at that time a vote of approval seems virtually assured.
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home