Eliot Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting minutes 7/21/14

Committee members present: Mike Warwick (chair), Phil Conti, Clint Lundmark, Mike Faden, Paul Van  Orden, Alise Munson, Laurie Simpson

Others present: Re development at 7th and NE Russell St — Dan Neal (developer) Paradigm Properties, Chris Looney (Paradigm), Paul Dustrud (architect), Renee Benoit (Dustrud), Steve Pfeiffer (lawyer, Perkins Coie)

About 20 local residents/neighbors: 10 from Eliot and 10 from Irvington

Item 1. 7^th and Russell development

• Paul Dustrud (architect)
  • Showing 2 concepts – both schematic (not fully developed)
  • Max height 75 feet, 4:1 FAR
  • Option 1 occupies more of lot; portion facing 7^th is lower (35 feet)
  • Option 2 occupies less of lot, but taller across entire building – more open space at south of building
  • Possible total of 82 units
  • Possible parking of 41 spots under building. Goal is to provide more than 1 space per 2 units. Underground parking all the way out to property lines under the building
  • Probably mostly 1 BR and 2 BR apts. Market value. Perhaps 500 SF to 1200 SF units.
• Questions/comments from committee:
  • Why build to this size when others nearby have built smaller buildings successfully; zone is an anomaly; what was sale price of land
• Answers
  • (Dan Neal)
  • Paradigm wanted to do steel and concrete project, which is more expensive, plus providing parking is expensive
  • Sale price of land was well in excess of $1 million
  • Initially considered 5 floors over ground floor parking lot, wood frame structure, would be cars on ground. Would still be probably 65 ft high
  • (Paul Dustrud) architect
  • we are amenable to looking at more options for building and more styles; recognize neighborhood has older style; there may be another form that building could take
• Mike Warwick, LUTC chair:
  • Input from neighborhood is that the building is too tall
  • Seek comments from committee – what are suggestions
  • Committee members comments/questions:
  • (Paul Van Orden) Questions
    • Would you enter into contractual agreement with neighborhood – concern from neighbors about building overlooking neighboring yards – e.g. can rooftop be set back;
    • Also how much do fantastic views play into fiscal equation
  • Answer (Neal) Economics force us to go tall; city staff encouraged us to use the density allowed in the code.
  • Answer (Dustrud) We were hoping to put roof deck at corner of 7^th so not looking into someone’s back yard – this feedback is a good thing to hear
  • Neighbor comment – building will block sun for solar panels on neighboring houses
  • Answer (Dustrud) – that was one of reasons tried to shrink footprint — was to reduce shading of other buildings
  • Question (Paul Van Orden) : Will need commercial garbage collection and request you think carefully about location of garbage and request match to time window of residential collection
  • Answer Dustrud) – that is reasonable – we typically have trash chute and compactor so able to garbage trucks not as frequently
  • Comment from committee (Laurie)
    • We identified that this building destroys scale of neighborhood
    • Every other building has a connection to the street; but once a building becomes higher than 4-5 stories it becomes elevator of apts
    • A pushed-down building that takes more area is better than a tower; don’t think the planned open space will benefit the community
    • Concerns about future. Right now there is a hot need for rentals; these apts may not be able to be converted to condo, so when market dips will remain empty
  • Answer (Dustrud) – as long as there is parking underground, plan to have units on ground level. As long as building is lower, will lose open space.
  • Comment from committee (Phil Conti) Consider how relatee to the street so still feels like community. Put yourself in position would you live across the street. Balconies are good.
  • Comment from committee (Clint Lundmark). It is too high.
  • Comment from committee (Alise Munson). Oldest neighborhood in Portland
  • Comments from Eliot/Irvington neighbors:
    • I live 3 blocks away. 80 units represents more than 3 times the number of residents that are on my block. My concern becomes parking and traffic. Russell is already very congested. Don’t see a way to mitigate traffic increase.
      • Answer (Dustrud). Will have bike storage to mitigate some of car usage.
      • Usage is changing. Likely to see more on-street parking that doesn’t move
    • Will see more through traffic
    • As a homeowner, how are you adding to value of our homes.
      • Answer (Dustrud). Depending on what building ends up being, could enhance neighborhood.
    • Will you consider building something that is 45 feet tall and based on design of neighborhood. This is really is out of place.
      • Answer (Neal). Of course will consider. But very challenging. Will be amazed if there is a way to make work.
    • Bought house last year. Big building will block light.
    • Would you be willing to sell the property back to us?
    • Why not condo project.
      • Answer (Chris Looney). We looked at that but economics of market – would not absorb the units with current unsold inventory.
    • Oppose statement that wood frame lower quality. Could build something that fitted in better with neighborhood, and then build lower.
      • Answer (Neal). We are going to take another hard look at wood.
    • Transient people. Hope take that into consideration – make open space attractive but not so attractive that people will use it to hang out.
    • In comparison with rest of street this is irresponsible.
    • Comes off as carpetbagger. Develop to max. As high and broad as can go. What is legal is one thing. Ask yourself if doing the right thing.
    • Comment from committee (Mike Warwick). New Comp Plan will recognize need to protect character of neighborhoods. Finding there is already capacity to handle growth.
    • Comment from committee (Laurie Simpson) We are in favor of density but there are more appropriate lots for density.
    • Comment from committee (Mike Warwick). To sum up: Building is too high. What are developer’s next steps? We would like to hear what your thinking is.
    • Answer (Neal). We are having meeting Wed AM. Don’t know where going to go after that.
    • We hear that overarching emphasis is height. If better is lower and go to straight edge, shorter and fatter, maybe we can work with.
    • We are not going to compromise on quality of building.
    • Comment from Mike Warwick. Have you thought about a building lower at edges and higher in the middle.
    • Answer (Looney). We could consider anything.
    • Timeline (Neal) Had thought construction might start next spring.
    • Developer plans to demolish existing structure as soon as obtains permit.

• Item 2. Williams/Rodney bikeway project
  • Rich Newlands, City of Portland.
    • Williams project went to bid. Have acceptable contractor. Construction planned to start early Sept; due to complete by November.
      • Bike lane on Williams will stay open during most of project
      • Now entering final phase of public involvement; another public event planned in August, safety education rollout at the same time.
    • Rodney bikeway
      • Recap/update
        • Crossings: Killingsworth, Fremont and Russell
          • Killingsworth will be curb extensions
          • Fremont as previously described
        • Diversion
          • Message from neighborhood: want it but willing to wait;
          • Diagonal diverter at Ivy is tool of choice
          • We are getting pressure from bike community to put in diverter
        • Stop signs
          • Can put in new N-S stop signs at Tillamook, Morris and Going
          • This would provide 3 blocks between each stop sign
          • One of options is to put speed bumps down at the time of Williams project
        • Feedback/requests from Committee
          • implement speed bumps, do not change stop signs at this point, wait on diverter