MEMORANDUM
COMMISSIONERS’ ASSISTANTS BRIEFING ON QUASI-JUDICIAL CASES
Date: August 24, 2020
To: Commissioners’ Assistants and City Attorney
From: Staci Monroe, Design Review
Staci.Monroe@portlandoregon.gov | (503) 823-0624
Morgan Steele, Greenway Review
Morgan.Steele@portlandoregon.gov | (503) 865-6437
Re: LU 20-102914 DZM AD GW
Hearing Date: September 10, 2020 at 2:00 PM
Briefing Date: August 31, 2020 at 2:30 PM
1. Application
▪ Type III Design and Greenway Review approval with Modifications and an Adjustment for a four block development in South Waterfront Sub District of Central City.
▪ Five (5) new buildings (2 high-rise, 3 mid-rise) providing 1,200 residential units, 22,000 SF of commercial space and 738 parking spaces and a new Greenway bike and pedestrian trail connection with landscaping and other public amenities. 52 of the units will meet the Affordable Housing requirements.
▪ Includes Modifications to vehicle parking and bike parking standards and an Adjustment to allow vehicle access off of River Parkway.
▪ Design Review is required for new development per Section 33.420.041. A South Waterfront Greenway Review is required for development in the South Waterfront Greenway that does not meet the standards of Section 33.510.253.E.5. Modifications and Adjustments are required for development standards that cannot be met.
2. Staff Findings and Recommendation
Staff recommended approval with conditions.
3. Review Body Decision and Findings
The Design Commission approved with conditions the requested land use review. A copy of the Design Commission’s decision is attached.
4. Applicant/Appellant
▪ Applicant. Wade Johns | Alamo Manhattan
▪ Appellant. Carrie Richter representing Leonard Gionet, Yvonne Meekcoms, and Mary Henry De Tessan.
5. Nature of Opposition. The decision of the Design Commission was appealed for the following reasons. (Language in italics is directly quoted from the appellant’s appeal statement.)
▪ Graduated buildings heights towards the river - The obligation to graduate building heights from the western boundary toward the river, as set forth in Guideline D2, and reinforced elsewhere, is not achieved through simple compliance with the base, plus bonus, building heights prescribed through the Zoning Code. Such an approach makes Guideline D2 a nullity. Further, this approach eliminates any discretion given to the Design Commission to "recognize special design values of an area" as set forth in the purpose statements of ZC 33.825.010 and complementing the "context" of the existing buildings. Contrary to the stated conclusion set forth in the findings, there is no evidence that this context appropriate evaluation as required by Guideline D2 was accomplished either at the time that the code was adopted setting the various maximum building heights or that that context was considered by the Design Commission as a means for determining what height graduation would be appropriate to satisfy these guidelines.
▪ Setbacks of Blocks 41 and 45 along the Greenway - Guideline A5 calls for enhancing and embellishing the character of the area. The natural river shoreline - a character defining feature of the area - recedes in a westerly direction as it moves further to the south. As a result, applying uniform riverfront setbacks, the Blocks 41 and 45 development must similarly erode such that it steps back from the river to the same degree allowing the Atwater and the Meriweather buildings to extend further to the east. The same degree of setback was not applied in this case.
▪ Tower massing on Blocks 41 and 45 - In addition to Guideline A5, Guideline C4 also requires complementing the context of existing buildings. High-rise development within South Waterfront is not characterized by towers that extend the full length of the property in any direction but rather are sculpted and narrow. This refined elegance is not just a character-defining design aesthetic for South Waterfront, it offers access to light and air to towers that will be completely blocked by the proposed massive and looming towers. The Block 41 and 45 towers create high-rise walls extending the full width from SW River Pkwy to the river blocking views of the river for everyone to the north and northwest. This approach is inconsistent with the light, airy and engaging design aesthetic that characterizes towers within the South Waterfront.
▪ Vehicle demand generated by the proposed development – No longer relevant as there are no Transportation-related approval criteria that apply (see Section 9, last bullet point, below).
▪ Quality of the Greenway improvements - South Waterfront Greenway Review, ZC 33.851.300, requires development that will "better enhance the natural, scenic, historical, economic and recreational qualities of the greenway." The provision of a pedestrian and multi-modal trail and restoration of the riverbank are the very minimum that the design guidelines require and entirely fail to exceed the standard requirements to better enhance the Greenway environment. This proposal fails to demonstrate how the proposed design will "better" provide the Greenway qualities identified.
6. Specific Council Decision Being Requested
The appellant is requesting that the approval with condition be denied by the Council.
7. Pertinent Land Use and History
▪ Base zone of the site is CX, Central Commercial zone.
▪ Overlay zones include both Design and Greenway.
▪ Site is located in the South Waterfront Sub District in the Central City Plan District.
▪ Property bounded by SW Bond, SW Lane, SW Lowell & Willamette River and currently vacant.
▪ Prior land use review history of note for the site includes three separate Design Reviews for four 7-story buildings and a 27-story tower, none of which were ever constructed. More recently, a Land Division approval to subdivide the property into 4 blocks.
9. Approval Criteria
The proposal must meet the approval criteria identified in Title 33 (Portland Zoning Code), including:
▪ Central City Fundamental and South Waterfront Design Guidelines
▪ Zoning Code Section 33.851.300 – South Waterfront Greenway Reviews
▪ South Waterfront Greenway Design Guidelines
▪ Zoning Code Section 33.825.040 for Modifications Through Design Review
▪ Zoning Code Section 33.805.040 Adjustment Approval Criteria
▪ Upon receipt of the appeal, Staff realized the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals were not required approval criteria for this more recent application. These additional approval criteria have been required for land use reviews processed under the CC2035 Zoning Code which was unacknowledged by the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Since this land use review was resubmitted and processed under the April 2017 Zoning Code these criteria do not apply. Therefore, the appeal item based on traffic impacts is not relevant as this project is not subject to any Statewide Planning Goals related to transportation (i.e. Goal 12), nor any other transportation-related approval criteria.
10. Pertinent Issues and Facts
▪ Project originally submitted on September 11, 2019 (case file LU 19-225732 DZM GW).
- First Design Commission hearing occurred on December 12, 2019.
- Design Commission agreed with Staff Recommendation that the project did not meet the approval criteria. Applicant requested a continuance to January 23, 2020.
- Application was withdrawn on January 10, 2020 by the applicant in order to re-apply under a previous version of the Zoning Code, which does not include CC2035 regulations. While Land Use Review applications are reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time the application is filed, ORS 92.040(2) states that a project has vesting in the zoning code in effect at the time of an application for a subdivision. This site and project submitted a land division application on April 25, 2017, which was approved on September 20, 2017. Therefore, the project is able utilize the zoning code requirements in effect on April 25, 2017.
▪ Subsequent application filed on January 8, 2020 (LU 20-102914 DZM AD GW) and deemed complete on January 9, 2020.
- This application was vested in April 2017 Zoning Code which included the Affordable Housing requirements but not the provisions adopted under CC2035 for bird-safe glazing, eco-roof and low-carbon buildings. Per the applicant the latter regulations were cost prohibitive.
- This application had four hearings before the Design Commission (3/5/20, 3/12/20, 6/11/20 and 7/2/20).
- Over the course of the review, there was a lot of public interest and participation. Staff received 42 written comments, the majority in opposition of the project. Primary concerns focused on the location and character of the towers which impacts views, proximity of buildings to the greenway, lack of building erosion along the greenway, quality of open spaces and elements in the greenway, scale and lack of articulation of the façades, loss of green roofs and bird-safe glazing, and parking and traffic impacts.
- The Design Commission determined the project met the approval criteria and adopted the following findings and facts relevant to the appeal items with their July 2, 2020 approval:
• The stepdown to the Willamette River indicated in South Waterfront Design Guideline D2 is achieved through the heights allowed through the Zoning Code, including height bonuses in eligible areas. This guideline does not require that every building on each block step down to the next and the next and the next as development moves towards the river. And, the Zoning Code does not require all buildings build to their maximum heights allowed. Rather, the intent of the purpose is to ensure that, overall, South Waterfront achieves a step down to the river by construction of projects consistent with allowed zoning heights. The South Waterfront Sub District has several different zoning height “transects” from west to east. West of Bond the height limits are the greatest with 250’ and up to 325’ via bonus height. East of Bond the height limits drop down to 125’ with the potential for 250’ with bonus height. Heights within 125’ of the top of bank are further limited to 75’. While the buildings on the western blocks do not take advantage of the maximum allowed building heights (250’), the building on the eastern blocks step down from the 250’ allowed bonus height down to a +45’ tall podium which is well below the 75’ height limit, in part, satisfying this guideline.
• There is no required setback for the buildings on Block 41 and 45 from the Greenway, however, the guidelines encourage erosion of development along the Greenway, which is reflected in the development to the north. Rather than a more uniform setback of the buildings along the entire Greenway frontage, deeper setbacks at specific locations where public amenities were provided was supported – at the Abernethy terminus for a public plaza and at the southeast corner for a outdoor patio accessed from Lowell. Articulated elevations and recessed facades with balconies that step back provide additional erosion along the Greenway.
• Regarding the tower massing on Blocks 41 and 45, South Waterfront regulations limit the north-south dimensions of towers to 125’. This is to ensure visual access through the district to and from the Greenway and Tualatin Hills and result in an urban form that is visually permeable and varied. Both towers meet this limitation with the northern tower well below at 65’ in its north-south dimension. The bar tower form on Block 41 is evident in the northern end of the district and two blocks to the west. The L-shape of the southern tower was determined to contribute to the varied tower forms in the district. The stepping of the southern tower and series of balcony clad glass facades further articulate and emphasize the tower massing to complement the sculpted towers in the district.
Central City Fundamental Design Guideline C1 calls for protection of “existing views and view corridors”. Significant views and view corridors are set forth in the City’s Scenic Resources Plan, and that consequently the requirement in this guideline for protection of view corridors requires a project to protect existing public view corridors as designated in the aforementioned plan. Such protection does not extend to existing private views. There are no public views or corridors designated within or through the site.
• Rather than meet the development standards for landscaping and bike and pedestrian trails, the applicant opted for an enhanced Greenway design that includes removing the dilapidated wooden pilings and pier structure from the river, laying back the river banks, providing a public overlook at the Abernethy terminus at the river, and placing large woody debris and root wads to enhance shallow water habitat in the river. The addition of more trees, benches along the paths and grass areas for recreating are also included. These improvements are also supported by the Parks Bureau and Urban Forestry.
11. Legal Parameters
▪ The applicant has signed a full 120-day waiver for this review. The 120-day clock will expire on January 8, 2021.
▪ This appeal hearing is an evidentiary hearing, and new evidence can be submitted to the City Council.
14. Alternatives Facing Council
▪ Deny the appeal, and uphold the Design Commission’s decision of approval with conditions.
▪ Deny the appeal but modify the Design Commission’s decision of approval with conditions and instruct the applicant to revise the design and return to Council at a future date.
▪ Grant the appeal, thereby overturning the Design Commission’s decision to approve with conditions. In this case, the project would be denied.