187832 Arevalo, Nora From: Dean P. Gisvold <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:19 PM To: Hales, Mayor Cc: Commissioner Fritz; Commissioner Fish; Commissioner Novick; Commissioner Saltzman; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; Barb Christopher; Brad Perkins; Dean P. Gisvold; Donald Wood; Ed Abrahamson; James Heuer; Jeff Jones; Jim Barta; Meryl Logue; Mickey Bishop; Nathan Corser; Nikki Johnston; Peter O'Neil; Robert Ridgeway; Stephen Doubleday; Steven Cole; William Archer Subject: Comp Plan Testimony Irvington Community Association Mayor and Commissions and Comp Plan staff, I am a board member of the Irvington Community Association (ICA). At our January meeting last night (January 141h) of the ICA Board, I was authorized by Board as land use committee chair to send you the following email regarding specific amendments proposed by the ICA to the Comp Plan draft before the City Council. The Board approved a resolution approving these amendments, and urging the Council to adopt same during the amendment process. A. State Land Use Goal 5 provides: "To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Local governments shall adopt programs that will protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space resources for present and future generations. These resources promote a healthy environment and natural landscape that contributes to Oregon's livability. [Emphasis added] B. Portland is a Cetiified Local Gove1nment under the Oregon Historic Preservation Act, and as such is required to adopt and enforce protections of designated historic resources, which include historic districts, such as Irvington. C. It is clear from the cmTent zoning code and statements in the draft Comp Plan that there is more than enough density in the present zoning code and its application (before any up zoning contemplated by the Comp Plan) for the next 20 years, and much longer, which means that the zoning changes contemplated by the amendments below will not impede Pmiland development and will make the Irvington zoning more compatible with the historic district guidelines found in the City Code. The City has an obligation to preserve its existing historic districts, its inventory of older neighborhoods, and make the Comp Plan/zoning compatible with the historic guidelines. 1 187832 Thus, the ICA proposes the following amendments to the zoning code and to the Comp Plan. 1. The RH zoning in the Irvington Historic District with its FAR of 4.0 is incompatible with the fabric of the district. The RH zoning where cunently found in Irvington should be restricted to FAR of2.0 or, if north of Schuyler Ave, the RH designation should be reduced to Rl to achieve compatibility with the transition to a predominantly residential neighborhood. 2. The maximum height of75 feet along Broadway on the north side between 7th and 16th is not justified either by market needs nor by consistency with the compatibility with the historic development pattern and should be adjusted downward in that stretch to match the 45 foot height currently established along the north side of Broadway between 16th and 27th. 3. The CX zoning along the n01ih side of Broadway between 7th and 16th is also not compatible with an historic district, and should be changed to CM 2, but without the benefit of bonuses. The bonuses are too much for an historic district. This request may be best dealt with in the Central City discussion because the half block n01ih of Broadway and between 7th and 16th is covered by the Central City Plan and the N01ih/N01iheast Quadrant plan. 4. Additional specific changes affecting the Irvington Historic District on the Comp Plan map are proposed below: a. 24th and Fremont commercial node-change from CN 2 to CMl-this is acceptable. b. 7th and Knott commercial node-change to from CNl to CMl-this is acceptable. c. Half block east of 7th, between Schuyler and Tillamook, and the full block between 7 and 8, Schuyler and Hancock-change from EX to CM3. This is NOT acceptable. The proposed CM3 designation should be change to CMl d. Half block north of Broadway between 16 and 27th, change CS to CM2. This is acceptable if bonuses are not allowed; the bonuses would push the height and FAR above levels compatible with an historic district. e. 15th and Brazee commercial node-change from R5 to CMl. This area is in the middle of the residential heati of Irvington, and one block from Irvington School. The original commercial building on this site was allowed only if it looked like a library building which it did. This commercial node is surrounded on all sides by residential dwellings. Yes, the cutTent uses are nonconfonning, but they knew this when they relocated. Indeed, the neighborhood relied on the nonconfonning status to enter into a Good Neighbor Agreement with the Hophouse. Because of the nonconfonning status, the Hophouse must close by 11 pm, not the 2 am allowed by their liquor license. If the staff is trying to rectify nonconforming uses, this is not the way to do it. This change is not acceptable to the ICA or to many neighbors, and should be deleted from the Comp Plan. If adopted, it would be the first commercial zoning on NE 15th 2 187832 except for the small area on Broadway. Indeed, the Irvington Community Association was formed (1964) in part to fight a proposed commercial project on NE 15th and Knott, a proposed gasoline station. Please enter this email in the official record and initiate amendments to accomplish the foregoing. Dean Gisvold, ICABoard Dean P. Gisvold I Attorney at Law I Senior Partner McEWEN G!SVOLD LLP - EST. 1886 1600 Standard Plaza, 1100 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 Direct: 503-412-3548 I Office: 503-226-7321 I Fax: 503-243-2687 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.mcewengisvold.com This message may contain confidential communications and/or privileged information. If you have received it in error, please delete it and notify the sender. 3 187832 187832 Arevalo, Nora From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:13 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: CPU Testimony To Portland City Council, RE: Moratorium on Building Permits until Zone Change We support a moratorium on Building Permits until the Zone Changes take place. We support the zone change from R2 To RS in the Powellhurst/Gilbert Neighborhood and on our property. I have attended several of the meetings and have heard nothing concerning a moratorium on building permits being issued until after the changes take place. The potential is there for the developer to submit a building permit the day before the zone change becomes affective and get "grandfathered" with the old zone or old zone rules or both. These builders have more concern over getting in "under the wire" than they do over the land use and how the adjacent property owners will be impacted. We currently have this situation on our street right now. We feel strongly that this is unfair to the adjacent home owners, the David Douglas School District here and in the various other area's of the city where in fill is taking place. We would like to remind city council that: 1. The David Douglas School District is severely over-capacity and a good reason to enact a moratorium, 2. The city still does not require developers to make improvements to streets that make any difference to the community (eg, they pave a small section in front of the property and create an island of asphalt), therefore a moratorium is necessary until the city figures out a way to make the improvements to support additional housing. 3. There are no services or public amenities to support any more density in our area. We speak on behalf of our neighbors in Powellhurst/Gilbert for the support of a moratorium on Building Permits until the Zone Change. Thank you for your time and consideration to this very important issue. Sincerely, Pati & Matt Hall 5230 SE 118th Ave Portland, Oregon 97266 1 187832 187832 Arevalo, Nora From: mark < [email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:03 PM To: mark; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: Re: zoning code update concerns for the record Karla, wanted to confirm you have this. On 1/15/2016 12:31 PM, mark wrote: Chris, I viewed the planning updates and found a very vague colored zoning map. This was unclear about the specific language for each code, nor were there any tables that I could easily find so one could see what changes may be as to what is allowed, not allowed, and subject to adjustments. I also discussed with a BPS staff member the over lay of transpo1iation concepts which of course can govern where those zoning changes might be placed, and what zoning would be appropriate. This too was so vague as to not be meaningful. How is it that staff would bring such a concept document to a vote when citizens cannot determine the impacts for their neighbbrhoods? I understand most people don't act until after the fact, which is something we discussed with Susaµ Anderson and Deb Stein a while back when meeting about the process and notification difficulties in bring the comp plan fmward .. People still don't get that developers are not the ones responsible for creating and administering the zoning rules that allow that which they object to, rather City Council is the responsible party. BPS is just following their policy directives. At one point I requested some quarter section maps from BPS to examine the existing zoning side by side so to compare to the proposed zoning.