City Auditor - City Recorder - Council Resolutions - 36215 Gateway Planning Regs Project Urban Design Concept & Action Charts exhibit A amended

Gateway Planning Regulations Project (Gateway Project)

Outstanding Issues

City Council Work Session and Continued Hearing

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

This report includes the requests for further analysis by the City Council as a result of the public hearing on April 21, 2004. The report includes a discussion of the issues, alternatives where possible, and, for some items, interagency approved revised code provisions.

Categories Page

I. Gateway Regional Center 3

1. Building height in the CM zone between 3

102^nd and 103^rd

2. Parking maximums in parking structures 5

Exhibit A. Revised Proposed for Parking 7

Maximums in Gateway

3. Location of and access to parking along the 9

light rail alignment

Exhibit B. Revised Proposal for Location and Access to 11

Parking along the Light Rail Alignment

4. Connectivity and dedicated rights-of-way 15

Exhibit C. Revised Proposal for Connectivity and 17

Right-of-Way Dedications

5. Gateway Apartments and the Change of zone 21

from RH to CX

II. East Corridor 23

6. Exterior display and storage 23

III. Minor Corrections 27

7. Institutional Use Exemption 27

Exhibit D. Minor Corrections 29

I. Gateway Regional Center

1. Building Height in the CM zone between 102^nd and 103^rd

Issues:

1. Several owners of single-family houses located inside and adjacent to the Gateway Plan District testified against the recommended 75 foot maximum height along 102^nd Avenue. The testifiers claim that taller buildings on adjoining lots or on lots across the street will overwhelm their houses, impact their quality of life, and reduce their property values. They requested reducing the maximum height along 102^nd Avenue to single family house levels (approx. 35 feet).

2. Commissioner Leonard inquired about whether the city had any plans to acquire the impacted residential properties. Could acquisition be a way of providing compensation to residents who feel that taller buildings unacceptably affect the enjoyment of their properties? Does PDC have any plans in this regard?

Discussion

A. Maximum heights

1. The City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Opportunity Gateway Concept Plan, approved by City Council in 2000, identifies 102^nd as a boulevard, signature street and location for larger scale development.

2. The properties in question have been zoned to allow multiple-dwelling residential development for decades.

• When the properties in question were part of Multnomah County, their zoning was MR-4. This is a medium-density residential district allowing 7.2 to 10.9 dwelling units/acre (3,996 sf – 6,050 sf lots).

• In 1986, when annexed, the properties in question were rezoned to R2 under the City of Portland zoning code. R2 was chosen as the classification most closely matching the County MR-4 zone. R2 allows up to 22 units/ acre in single-family detached and attached dwellings, two-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, residential homes, and elderly and disabled high density housing. The height could be four stories or 45 feet.

• In 1987, City Council applied the “t,” transit overlay zone to these properties. This overlay made single-family detached residential development not allowed in R2 and R3. By 1994, City Council changed the “t” overlay to make new single-family detached development prohibited in these zones.

• In 1996, as part of the Outer Southeast Community Plan, these R2t and R3t zoned properties were changed to CM (Mixed Commercial). The properties were given a maximum height of 120 ft with 8:1 residential floor area ratio.

3. The current proposal in the Gateway Project actually lowers development maximums from current levels on these properties. The Planning Commission did this in response to resident concerns:

• The height would be lowered from 120 ft to 75 ft.

• The current floor area ratio of 8:1 for residential and 6:1 for non-residential would be lowered to 6:1 and 4:1.

• A two-step height transition¹ would be instituted because Planning Commission recognized a need to create a reasonable transition between the regional center and the single-dwelling neighborhood outside the regional center boundary.

4. There is the desire to be able, over time, to reach a scale of development on 102^nd that supports the street’s success as Gateway’s signature commercial boulevard. The proposed Urban Design Concept (page I-25 in the Recommended Report) calls for treating 102^nd as a boulevard lined with multistory buildings that creates a north-south urban edge through Gateway.

B. Payment or compensation

While the area is within the Gateway Urban Renewal Area, PDC has no current plans for acquisition of the residential properties affected by the proposed height changes.

2. Parking Maximums in Parking Structures

Issue:

The Gateway Urban Renewal Program Advisory Committee, Hazelwood Neighborhood Association, and Dick Cooley have requested that all parking built in a structured parking garage be exempt from the parking maximum limitation. They argue that the exemption is justified for two reasons: 1) to promote structured parking over development of surface parking) and 2) to allow Gateway to compete with suburban markets, which, according to the Portland Development Commission, have no maximum parking requirements for such garages.

Policy Directives

Portland Comprehensive Plan – Goal 5, Economic Development

Policy 5.2. Business Development: Sustain and support business development activities to retain, expand and recruit businesses.

Objective A. Develop incentives for businesses to locate and stay in Council-designated target areas.

Objective B. Incorporate economic considerations in long-range planning activities undertaken by the Bureau of Planning.

Portland Comprehensive Plan – Goal 6, Transportation

Policy 6.25. Parking Management: Manage the parking supply to achieve transportation policy objectives for neighborhood and business district vitality, auto trip reduction, and improved air quality.

Policy 6.27. Off Street Parking: Regulate off-street parking to promote good urban form and the vitality of commercial and employment areas.

Objective A. Consider eliminating requirements for off-street parking in areas of the city where there is existing or planned high-quality transit service and good pedestrian and bicycle access.

Objective C. Limit the development of new parking spaces to achieve land use, transportation, and environmental objectives.

Discussion

1. Gateway’s maximums are generally more restrictive than the rest of the City (other than the Central City). The Gateway maximum is set to 150% of standards for the same zones elsewhere in the City. This results in parking maximums of 3 spaces/1000 sq. ft. for office and general retail. Current code allows a parking maximum of 3 spaces/1000 sq. ft. for medical/dental offices; Planning Commission recommended 4.9 spaces/1000 sq. ft.

2. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is based on the finding that parking maximums and low parking ratios are among the most effective policies for promoting transit use and accomplishing the level of transit-supportive development desired in Gateway. That is why the Planning Commission and PDOT have pursued these policies in transit areas throughout the city.

3. Exempting structured parking from parking maximums in Gateway would be consistent Metro’s Regional Parking Policy, Title 2 in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, states that the following parking spaces may be exempted from maximum parking standards:

• parking spaces in parking structures;

• fleet parking;

• parking for vehicles that are for sale, lease or rent;

• employee car pool parking spaces;

• dedicated valet parking spaces;

• spaces that are user paid; market rate parking or other high-efficient parking management alternatives.

4. Exempting structured parking from parking maximums is not likely to be sufficient incentive to increase the amount of parking or parking structures in Gateway. Based on a 1996 study by ECONorthwest for the Clackamas Regional Center, the only incentives that will leverage structured parking in areas with abundant land and surface parking are financial incentives.

5. The parking maximums in Gateway should not be reduced until there is a comprehensive parking management strategy in place. As Gateway becomes a hub of transit and development, there will be a need for a strategy to manage on-street, off-street and transit-related parking. Metro has tentatively allocated $32,000 in funding for a Gateway Transportation Management Association (TMA) beginning in 2006. This strategy would combine management of on-street and off-street parking with transit and other alternative transportation programs.

6. Oregon DEQ and Metro studies have shown that 3.4 spaces /1000 sq. ft. generally provides a parking space for every employee. The ratio of 4 spaces/1000 sq. ft. requested by the advocates for this amendment far exceeds documented need and city and regional policy.

Recommendation

1. Staff recommends maintaining the parking maximums in Gateway as recommended by the Planning Commission.

2. If City Council would like to allow more flexibility in parking maximums, Staff recommends raising the parking maximums for office uses as follows:

• Raise the maximum only if all spaces are in a structure

• For parking in structures, allow 3.4 spaces /1000 sq. ft. of office

• Allow the higher parking maximum recommended by Planning Commission for medical/dental offices only when those spaces are in a structure.

Exhibit A

Revised Proposal for Parking Maximums in Gateway

33.526.340 Parking

A. Purpose

B. Number of parking spaces

1. Minimum required parking spaces. There is no minimum number of required parking spaces.

2. Maximum allowed parking spaces.

a. Except as specified in B.2.b., the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for nonresidential uses is 150 percent of Standard A in Table 266-2 of Chapter 33.266, Parking and Loading. The maximums apply to both surface and structured parking.

~~b. The maximum number of parking spaces allowed for medical and dental offices is 4.9 per 1000 sq. ft. of floor area. The maximum applies to both surface and structured parking.~~

b. If all of the parking on the site, and all of the parking accessory to uses on the site, is in structured parking, the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for Office uses is 1 space per 294 square feet of floor area and the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for Medical and Dental Offices is 1 space per 204 square feet of floor area.

c. ~~Park-and-ride facilities are exempt from this requirement.~~ There is no maximum for park-and-ride facilities.

3. Location of and Access to Parking along the Light Rail Alignment

Issue:

Current code prohibits parking and loading areas and driveways between a primary structure and an abutting light rail alignment. In Gateway this means that driveways and parking/loading areas are restricted for properties along the Burnside MAX line. Planning, PDOT, and BDS recommend that parking and loading areas and driveways along transit streets in Gateway be made possible through a modification to increase flexibility for properties and businesses along the transit line.

Discussion

1. The prohibition of these uses along a transit line is based on the circumstances faced in the Central City.

2. Gateway faces different circumstances. Transit rail lines in Gateway are grade separated from the street except where they cross major intersections: 99^th, 102^nd, 122^nd, 148^th, and 162^nd, along with a few intersections that allow U-turns between 102^nd and 162^nd. Thus, drivers must turn right onto Burnside in most locations and none can drive on the rails. As for pedestrians crossing the rails, in most locations the combination of gates, fences, landscaping, and gravel make crossing them anywhere except at the above intersections essentially impossible and certainly extremely dangerous. In addition, while the vision and intent for Gateway is for it to become a more urban, pedestrian-oriented place, the area will transition only over time.

3. The Portland Office of Transportation has indicated that, as long as the purpose statement accurately reflects the intention regarding this issue along the rail alignment, making the provision “not allowed” will give staff a greater ability to work closely with property owners in fashioning transportation options that both protect the rail alignment while still encouraging economically desirable changes.

Interagency Recommendation:

1. Clarify the purpose statement for the parking provisions in the Gateway and East Corridor Plan districts as shown in Exhibit B.

2. Change the restriction on parking, driveway and access areas along light rail lines from “prohibited” to “not allowed.”

3. Clarify the wording of the language pertaining to parking structures near light rail.

Exhibit B

Revised Proposal for Location and Access to Parking along the Light Rail Alignment

For the Gateway Plan District

33.526.340 Parking

A. Purpose. The regulations of this Section ensure that development is oriented to transit, bicycling, and pedestrian travel while ensuring accessibility for motor vehicles. Limiting the number of parking spaces promotes efficient use of land, enhances urban form, encourages use of alternative modes of transportation, provides for a better pedestrian environment, and protects air and water quality. Parking that is provided in structures is preferred over parking in surface lots because, as a more efficient use of land, structured parking promotes compact urban development. In addition, parking structures with active uses on the ground floor provide a better environment for pedestrians and contribute to the continuity of street-level retail and service uses that support a thriving urban area.

The parking ratios in this section will accommodate most auto trips to a site and take into account the intensity of development in the area, on-street parking supply, pedestrian activity, and proximity to frequent transit service.

Limiting the location of parking and access on light rail alignments improves access to transit, supports a transit-oriented development pattern, and reduces conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians or bicycles. In particular, it reduces conflicts between motor vehicles and light rail trains, especially where the access would require cars to cross the light rail tracks.

C. Location. Surface parking, and motor vehicle parking, maneuvering and loading are prohibited on the portion of a site within 100 feet of a light rail alignment. Motor vehicle parking, maneuvering, and loading areas are not allowed between the façade of a building and any street. For through lots and sites with three frontages, vehicle parking, maneuvering and loading areas are allowed between the building and one Local Service Transit Street. On full-block sites, motor vehicle parking, maneuvering, and loading areas are allowed between the building and two Local Service Transit Streets.

1. Vehicle areas are not allowed between a primary structure and any street, except as follows:

a. Sites with through lots or with three frontages may have vehicle areas between a primary structure and one Local Service Transit Street.

b. Sites on full blocks may have vehicle areas between a primary structure and two Local Service Transit Streets.

c. Driveways are allowed between a building and a street that is not a light rail alignment if the driveway provides a straight line connection between a street and parking area inside the building. Driveways between a building and a light rail alignment are not allowed.

2. Vehicle areas are not allowed on the portion of the site within 100 feet of a street that is a light rail alignment.

~~D. Parking structures.~~ In the C and E zones, portions of parking structures located within 100 feet of a light rail alignment must be designed and constructed to accommodate Retail Sales And Service or Office uses along at least 50 percent of the structure's ground level walls that front onto the light rail alignment.

E. Parking access. Motor vehicle access to any parking area or structure, or loading are is prohibited from a light rail alignment unless the site does not abut another street.

D. Structured parking near light rail. In C and E zones, areas of structured parking located within 100 feet of a light rail alignment must meet the standards of 33.526.280.C., Ground Floor Active Uses, along at least 50 percent of the structure’s ground floor walls that face the light rail alignment and front onto a sidewalk, plaza, or other public open space.

For the East Corridor Plan District

33.521.290 Parking

A. Purpose. The regulations of this Ssection ensure that development is oriented to transit ~~and does not discourage transit use~~, bicycling, or and pedestrian travel ~~by ignoring transit facilities or accommodating facilities~~ while ensuring accessibility for motor vehicles ~~at the expense of pedestrians~~. Limiting the number of parking spaces promotes efficient use of land, enhances urban form, encourages use of alternative modes of transportation, provides for a better pedestrian environment, and protects air and water quality. Parking that is provided in structures is preferred over parking in surface lots because, as a more efficient use of land, structured parking promotes compact urban development. In addition, parking structures with active uses on the ground floor provide a better environment for pedestrians and contribute to the continuity of street-level retail and service uses that support a thriving urban area.

C. Location. Motor vehicle parking, maneuvering, and loading areas are subject to the provisions of section 33.266.130. Motor vehicle parking, maneuvering, and loading areas between the primary structure and an abutting light rail alignment are prohibited.

1. Vehicle areas are not allowed between a primary structure and any street, except as follows:

a. Sites with through lots or with three frontages may have vehicle areas between a primary structure and one Local Service Transit Street.

b. Sites on full blocks may have vehicle areas between a primary structure and two Local Service Transit Streets.

2. Vehicle areas are not allowed on the portion of the site within 100 feet of a street that is a light rail alignment.

~~D. Parking access~~~~. Motor vehicle access to any parking area or structure, or loading are is prohibited from a light rail alignment unless the site does not abut another street.~~

E. Parking structures. In the C zones, parking structures or parts of parking structures located within 50 feet of a light rail alignment must be designed and constructed to accommodate Retail Sales And Service or Office uses along at least 50 percent of the structure's ground level walls that front onto the light rail alignment.

D. Structured parking near light rail. In C zones, areas of structured parking located with 100 feet of a light rail alignment must meet the standards of 33.526.280.C., Ground Floor Active Uses, along at least 50 percent of the structure’s ground floor walls that face the light rail alignment and front onto a sidewalk, plaza, or other public open space.

4. Connectivity and Dedicated Rights-of-Way

Issue:

One of the most important issues facing Gateway is providing adequate street connections to serve and shape the more intense level of development desired for the Regional Center. The Gateway Project recommends accomplishing this connectivity in the Regional Center by using the master street plan adopted for Gateway as part of the citywide Transportation System Plan in October 2002. The project also recommends basing street connectivity in the East Corridor on master street plans or a general block size of 400 by 200 feet. There are two main connectivity provisions: 1) new development will be required to provide streets and accessways as determined by the City Engineer to be consistent with the master street plan, and 2) new site improvements are not allowed to obstruct street alignments shown in the master street plan.

In his testimony to City Council, Dick Cooley requested that the code be changed to require dedication of right-of-way in all circumstances.

Discussion

1. In the past the City has not been entirely successful in requiring connectivity improvements in Gateway. The City lacked authority to require Mall 205 to provide connectivity improvements called for in the Opportunity Gateway Strategy with the major remodeling of the shopping center. The developer did create an internal drive-aisle system far superior to the earlier one.

2. The authority of the City to require connectivity improvements was clarified and strengthened with the last revisions to the Transportation System Plan. These changes include the adoption of the Gateway Master Street Plan and revisions to Title 17.88.

3. The City Engineer has the ability to require rights-of-way to be reserved, rights-of-way to be dedicated, or rights-of-way to be dedicated and improved to City standards. In the following circumstances:

a. Building Permits: The City may place requirements on building permits in return for the building permit. Through its Title 17 authority, PDOT staff calls for dedications as a condition of building permit approval to widen narrow rights-of-way and to extend new streets. The dedication is required prior to approval of the building permit and may be appealed to the City Engineer.

b. Land Use Decisions (including land divisions): PDOT may recommend dedications through some types of land use reviews, such as land divisions, conditional uses and zone changes. The recommendation is based on approval criteria regarding connectivity or adequacy of services. The ultimate decision is made by the decision-making person or body for the land use review, and the process has a standard appeal either to LUBA, the Hearings Officer or City Council. In some limited cases PDOT staff is able to require dedications directly through Title 17 authority. Because the land use process has less certainty, PDOT prefers to obtain dedications through the building permit process where possible.

4. Limitations: Such requirements must be weighed against:

• The relative impact to the site. New street dedications can take up a substantial portion of a small site; sometimes little is left for development/redevelopment.

• The scale relative to the specifics of the building permit. For example, it might be difficult to get a dedication if the building permit is for an addition to a single family dwelling.

• The presence of significant existing improvements, such as a primary building in good condition, in the path of the proposed dedication.

• Any other legal considerations such as applicability of the Dolan case.

5. Where such constraints exist, PDOT staff will explore options that meet the intent of the policy while minimizing legal or other implications. Some examples of options include minor realignment of the right-of-way, temporary narrowing, and skirting an existing structure with the dedication.

Recommendation

1. Retain the flexibility of the currently proposed provisions that keep the decision about whether to require reservation, dedication or improvement of proposed streets and accessways in the hands of PDOT and the City Engineer according to the standard practices in Title 17. Revise the Planning Commission’s recommendation to clarify the provisions for connectivity in both Title 33 and Title 17. Ensure that a mechanism is in place to identify sites subject to this provision.

2. See Exhibit C.

Exhibit C

Revised Proposal for Connectivity and Right-of-Way Dedications

Revisions to Title 33

For the Gateway Plan District

33.526.250 Connectivity

A. Purpose. The connectivity requirement ensures that adequate street and pedestrian/bicycle connections will be provided for local access to development and access for emergency vehicles. This regulation implements the Gateway Master Street Plan and improves vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation throughout the plan district, while minimizing congestion on the arterial system. Where full street connections are not feasible, pedestrian and bicycle connections provide access for those most sensitive to the lack of direct connections.

B. Where these regulations apply. The requirements of this Section apply to all sites in the plan district.

C. Requirements

~~1. Streets and accessways must be consistent with the Gateway Master Street Plan in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.~~

2. ~~The Portland Office of Transportation determines the extent and timing of street improvements.~~

1. The Portland Office of Transportation determines the location and widths of rights-of-way and extent and timing of street improvements based on the Gateway Master Street Plan in the Transportation Element of the comprehensive Plan.

2. Proposed development that may obstruct new street alignments as identified in the Gateway Master Street Plan is regulated by Chapter 17.88.

~~33.526.255 Building Location~~

~~Site improvements that obstruct new street alignments as identified in the Gateway Master Street Plan are not allowed.~~

For the East Corridor Plan District

33.521.230 Connectivity

A. Purpose. The connectivity requirement ensures that adequate street and pedestrian/bicycle connections will be provided for local access to development. ~~This~~ These regulations implement~~s the East Corridor Master Street Plan~~ master street plans for the East Corridor and improves vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation throughout the plan district, while minimizing congestion on the arterial system. ~~Where full street connections are not feasible, p~~Pedestrian and bicycle connections provide ~~access for those most sensitive to the lack of direct connections~~ more frequent connections or may provide access where full street connections are not feasible.

B. Where these regulations apply. The requirements of this Section apply to all sites in the plan district.

C. ~~Connectivity~~ Regulations

1. Regulation. Streets and accessways must be consistent with any master street plan prepared for the East Corridor Master Street Plan, as adopted in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Master Street Plan is not yet adopted, streets must be located so that block sizes are generally 400 feet by 200 feet, and streets connect to the surrounding street grid.

2. ~~Improvements and timing. The Portland Office of Transportation determines the extent and timing of street improvements.~~

1. The Portland Office of Transportation determines the location and widths of rights-of-way and extent and timing of street improvements based on a master street plan in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan or based on Chapter 17.88.

2. Proposed development that may obstruct new street alignments as identified in a master street plan in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is regulated by Chapter 17.88.

~~33.521.235 Building Location~~

~~Site improvements that obstruct new street alignments as identified in the East Portland Master Street Plan are not allowed.~~

Revisions to Title 17

Title 17, Public Improvements

(new language is underlined)

Chapter 17.88 STREET ACCESS

Sections:

17.88.001 Purpose.

17.88.010 Definitions.

17.88.020 For Building and Planning Actions.

17.88.030 Location of Multiple Dwellings.

17.88.040 Through Streets.

17.88.050 Transportation Impact Study.

17.88.060 Dedication Prior to Construction.

17.88.070 Routes of Travel in Park Areas.

17.88.080 Special Requirements.

17.88.80 Special Requirements

A. East Corridor Plan District. Until a master street plan is adopted in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the East Corridor Plan District, as shown in Title 33, Map 526-1, street connectivity for the area should generally be based on a block size of 400 by 200 feet and connect to the surrounding street grid.

TRACS

A request has been made to the Information Technology (IT) staff at the Bureau of Development BDS to create a trigger for review of the connectivity requirements of the Gateway Plan District and the East Corridor Plan District in TRACs.

A process line would be automatically dropped into TRACs anytime a permit was setup for a development in the two plan districts. The process would either require review by Office of Transportation at the time of intake of the plans or add a mandatory review process after intake. The mandatory process would be applicable to all permits including new development, alterations and additions, tenant improvements and site development.

This will ensure timely review and implementation of the connectivity requirements in conformance with the Master Street Plan.

Planning & Zoning staff of the Development Services Center will continue to call Transportation staff on call to provide information on these requirements to applicants in advance of applying for a building permit or land use review.

The timing of the implementation of this request will be soon after the effective date of the Gateway Planning Regulations Project.

5. Gateway Apartments and the change of zone from RH to CX

Issue:

Tenants from the Gateway Apartments are concerned that they are being evicted because of the recommended zone change from RH to CX. Testimony from the property owner attempted to clarify the situation and removed the pressure for tenants to quickly relocate out of the property. Commissioner Francesconi specifically asked staff to identify ways to improve outreach to tenants and other difficult to reach populations in future planning projects.

Discussion

1. The Planning Commission recommended the RH to CX zoning change for the following reasons:

a. Rezoning this small area of RH (high-density multi-family residential) to CX (urban commercial) at this critical intersection creates a continuous frontage of CX west of 102^nd from Halsey almost to Burnside. This is in keeping with the desire to transform 102^nd to a pedestrian-friendly boulevard with a variety of high-density uses.

b. The additional CX zoned property will create a site with greater flexibility for dense mixed-use development in a way that is more consistent with the objectives for properties in the proximity of the Gateway Transit Station.

c. More intense, possibly commercial, development was desired for the intersection of 102^nd and Pacific Avenue because it is considered a gateway location for entrance into the concentration of development hoped for around the Gateway Transit Center at 99^th and Pacific Avenue.

2. The property and the blocks to the west are poised for new, more intense mixed-use development. Specifically, the property owner has developed scenarios for this property and adjacent properties that included developing office uses along 102^nd and multifamily residential buildings between 101^st and 99^th.

3. The rezoning produced no net loss of housing. Of the 193 acres of zone changes, this 3.84 acres is the only one from a residential to a non-residential zone. The housing potential lost from rezoning these parcels from RH to CX is more than offset by the rezoning of the remaining RH-zoned properties west of 102^nd to RX. The rezoning of the site to CX reduces its potential as housing by approximately 400 units. The other rezonings proposed as part of the Gateway Project increases the housing potential within the project area by 4,653 units.

4. A mix of housing or commercial uses could be developed on the site under CX or RX zoning. If the site were zoned CX as recommended, up to 104 housing units could be developed, and/or the entire site could be used for retail or office uses. If the site were to be zoned RX, up to 465 housing units could be developed, and up to 40 to 50% of the net building area of a new residential building may be in retail or office uses. The height and FAR (both minimum and maximum) would be the same under any of the zones.

5. The testimony at the last City Council hearing clearly made the point that that the Gateway Project did not adequately connect with a major group of tenants within the project area.

• In the St. Johns/Lombard Plan, the Planning Bureau contracted with local community development organizations to assist with outreach to Spanish speaking and Asian populations in the project area out of concern that these relatively new populations to the community had not been adequately included in the past.

• Another approach is to consult the Bureau of Housing and Community Development, PDC housing staff, and local non-profits to identify groups and individuals that could have assisted with outreach to tenants.

• When initiating and developing planning projects, staff can regularly contact organizations such as the Community Alliance of Tenants and work with them to determine the most effective ways of reaching these important stakeholders.

Recommendation

No amendment was requested by City Council.

II. East Corridor

6. Exterior Display and Storage

Issue:

The proposed plan district regulations retain the existing prohibition of exterior display and storage in the pedestrian districts around transit stations. This includes 122^nd Avenue from Glisan to Stark. The proposed regulations eliminate the current code’s residential requirement on large sites, as well as standards that require 30% of a sites over 80,000 sq. ft. to be developed for roadways, accessways or open space. Both of these provisions have created problems for existing auto dealerships and have prevented expansion of auto dealerships.

Planning and PDOT have agreed to undertake a follow-up study of 122^nd Avenue from Glisan to Stark. This study would address the question of how best to integrate a major roadway and the auto-oriented commercial development that line it into the pedestrian and transit supportive design and development desired for the community around the MAX station. The project would also create a street master plan for the area, thereby justifying the elimination of current connectivity standards.

Testifiers expressed concern that the study area was too small and questioned whether the study could be conducted impartially. They also expressed concern that allowing exterior display and storage will open up other kinds of undesirable categories, since one cannot differentiate between uses such as new and used car dealerships.

Representatives of Ron Tonkin testified that they were interested in the eventual removal of obstacles to development and operation of auto dealerships along 122^nd, but that they were supportive of the follow-up study as the means to evaluate and decide this question.

Policy Directives

From Portland Comprehensive Plan: Goal 6, Transportation

Policy 6.8: Pedestrian Districts are intended to give priority to pedestrian access in areas where high levels of pedestrian activity exist or are planned, including the Central City, Gateway regional center, town centers, and station communities.

The Transportation System Plan incorporated three pedestrian districts along the East Corridor into the Comprehensive Plan: Ventura Park (122^nd and Burnside), 148^th and Burnside, 162^ndand Burnside

From Outer Southeast Community Plan: MAX LRT Corridor Policy

Policy: “Ensure that private development reinforces and is reinforced by the public light rail investment by encouraging development of intense commercial and dense residential uses near the MAX light rail stations.”

Objective 1: Encourage the redevelopment of large underused or auto-oriented sites along 122^nd Avenue to a mixture of commercial and residential uses.

Objective 2: Improve the pedestrian orientation of buildings and streets around light rail stations.

From the Hazelwood Neighborhood Plan:

Policy 7, 122^nd Avenue Subarea: Ensure that 122^nd Avenue commercial area develops in a nodal pattern to maintain the quality of adjacent neighborhoods and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle-friendly nature of areas in-between commercial nodes.

Discussion

1. Currently exterior display and storage is prohibited throughout the Gateway Plan District. The Gateway Project proposes to remove the prohibition on exterior display and storage in the East Corridor Plan District except in the three pedestrian districts and on portions of sites within 100 feet of a light rail alignment.

2. Restrictions on auto dealerships in this area predate the current zoning. Most properties along 122^nd between Glisan and Stark, were annexed into Portland from Multnomah County in 1986, the same year that the MAX line between Downtown and Gresham opened. In October 1987, City Council applied zoning to the area that prohibited the sale or rental of new or used vehicles. In 1991, with the introduction of the “t” overlay, the prohibition was changed to being on exterior display and storage, which includes prohibition of outdoor auto lots.

3. The Outer Southeast Community Plan included the above provisions in the Gateway Plan District, which expanded the original Gateway Plan District and incorporated the entire MAX corridor, including the properties around the stations where the “t” overlay zone had been earlier applied.

4. Neighborhood representatives expressed concern that having the Tonkin Corp. fund part of the project would compromise the result. The City often accepts contributions from private parties to undertake work that would be unfunded otherwise. This project will be funded by Planning, Tonkin and potentially the State through a rapid response grant. Tonkin’s primary contribution will be to provide an urban design consultant to the project. The project will be managed by Planning and overseen by a advisory committee including representatives of the Hazelwood Assoc. and the East Portland Neighborhood Coalition.

5. Neighborhood representatives advocated for expansion of the study area to include more of the 122^nd corridor. Staff agrees that it is important for a variety of issues to address design, development and access along 122^nd. Staff will pursue a TGM grant for this larger study. The issue of reconciling auto-oriented uses and design with the goals for the transit station community are more local. Staff will explore ways to include a slightly larger area from Halsey to pick up the San Rafael Shopping Center to the commercial zoning on the south side of Stark and 122^nd.

6. Neighborhood representatives expressed concern that allowing exterior display and storage will open up other kinds of undesirable categories, since one cannot differentiate between uses such as new and used car dealerships. An important part of the 122^nd study will be to try to make a distinction between exterior display the design, location and nature of which is consistent with the goals for the station area community and that which is not. The objective will be to prohibit the latter.

7. The creation of a street master plan for the area by PDOT is an essential part of the follow-up study. If that cannot be accomplished due to funding, it calls into question the desirability of eliminating the current connectivity standards at this time.

Recommendation

Staff will confirm that the funding and scope are in place for the follow-up study.

III. Minor Corrections

7. Institutional Use Exemption

Issues:

1. Clarify language re: development standards as relates to schools:

During discussions with representatives of the Adventist Academy on SE 97^th between Main and Market (the potential location of a light rail transit station for the proposed MAX extension from Gateway to Clackamas), the concern was raised that new development standards along Main made no sense for a school. The Adventist Academy site is zoned Institutional Residential, IR. Planning Commission agreed that institutional uses in an IR zone should be exempt from new development standards. Staff needs to clarify that this applies to such uses in an IR zone. This amendment clarifies the code language.

2. Remove redundant language from Enhanced Pedestrian Street Standards

In evaluating Issue #3 (Location of and Access to Parking along the Light Rail Alignment), staff identified issues and complexity in related code provisions - 33.526.280, Enhanced Pedestrian Street Standards. The proposed revision simplifies the regulation, both for the applicant and for staff of the Bureau of Development Services, by removing redundant language.

Recommendations: See Exhibit D.

Exhibit D

Minor Corrections

The following revisions would be made to the Zoning Code.

33.526.260 Pedestrian Standards

B. Standards

2. Improvements between buildings and the street. ~~All d~~Development on sites abutting an Enhanced Pedestrian Street as shown on Map 526-4 must meet Standard B.2.b. ~~, unless there is an Institutional use on the site.~~ Development on all other sites~~, including sites with Institutional uses,~~ must meet the standards of either B.2.a or b. Development on sites zoned IR, where there is an Institutional use on the site, must meet the standards of either B.2.a or b.

33.526.280 Enhanced Pedestrian Street Standards

B. Where these regulations apply. ~~New d~~Development on sites abutting an Enhanced Pedestrian Street as shown on map 526-4, where the development is new development or that adds at least ~~and the addition of~~ 40,000 square feet in floor area on to the sites, ~~shown on Map 526-4 at the end of this Chapter~~ must meet the standards of this section. Development on sites zoned IR, where If there is an Institutional use on the site, ~~the site is~~ are exempt from this requirement.

D. Ground floor active uses.

5. ~~On the portion of a site within 200 feet of a light rail alignment and on sites in the CX zone, p~~Parking is not allowed in the areas that are required to meet the standard of this subsection.