Heartline (Pearl Block 136) | 150' | 15 floors | Complete

[maccoinnich]

A demolition permit was issued for the PNCA Goodman Building:

Demolition of single story concrete warehouse with no basement. Slab will be left on site.Seperate permit for demo of sprinkler system to be obtained from the Fire Marshal’s Office. JET

[CouvScott]

By: Shelby King in Real Estate and Development March 3, 2015 12:51 pm



Developers of a pair of proposed Pearl District buildings are moving ahead with site work, though design appeals are impeding anything more.

Security Properties’ development plan for Block 136 – consisting of a five-story building and a 15-story building – was approved by the Portland Design Commission, but neighborhood group Preserve the Pearl LLC has appealed that decision.

Karen Karlsson, founder of KLK Consulting LLC, last week applied to the Portland Bureau of Development Services for a permit to demolish the existing single-story building on the site in preparation for construction, which is scheduled to begin this spring. Karlsson did not return a call for comment on the demolition schedule.

“The Pearl (District) as we know it is a development neighborhood,” said Portland attorney Burton Francis, who’s been retained by the preservation group to handle the appeal. “Preserve the Pearl isn’t against development; we just want development that follows the design guidelines set forth in the zoning laws.”

The proposal for the 15-story tower has concerned neighbors since it was first presented to the design commission. Nevertheless, commissioners said that the building height was appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and praised Seattle-based project developer Mithun for its proposal.

Francis contends that the design commission erred in issuing its approval on the basis that Pearl District residents were not adequately consulted during the process, the height allowance afforded the tower building was improper based on city code regulations and not all design guidelines were met.

“I know (the Bureau of Development Services) has its own classification of what notice goes out and under what circumstances,” Francis said. “But the fundamental question is: Did they go through the democratic process with this? There should be input from stakeholders, and as far as we can tell there was no outreach at all done for the residents of the Pearl.”

While the design commission didn’t take issue with the height allowance given for the taller building, Francis says the group interpreted the zoning code incorrectly when allowing the height increase.

When reading zoning code, Francis found that the design commission allowed the bonus height exception under a subsection D, a section that he says pertains to office space. But the taller building would contain residential units.

“There appears to be a drafting error in the code which has resulted in a misapplication of the administrative intent,” he said. “By structure of the statute, the portion of the project seeking the height exception is solely residential except for the ground-floor commercial portion. The developer is ‘double dipping’ and benefitting from not one, but two residential housing exceptions.”

Finally, the development doesn’t meet all of the design guidelines required to qualify for the height exceptions, Francis said.

“We just want to say, ‘Hey, if you think the height exception is correct, then let’s address each of these criteria,” he said. “If you look at the notice of hearing from the bureau, it says the burden of proof is on the developer to show how each and every one of the design aspects meets design criteria.”

Preserve the Pearl, in its appeal, says specifically that the design doesn’t preserve historical districts, doesn’t protect public spaces from shadow and fails to preserve “the city’s visual focus on important buildings.”

“One of the outstanding and uniquely Portland qualities of the middle-Pearl is the visual focus of the Union Station clock tower,” Francis wrote in his memorandum to the City Council in support of the appeal. “This proposition is apparently so obvious that it warranted specific mention in the zoning code. However, the project in question will create a (150-foot)-high wall across the ‘visual focus’ of the tower in relation to at least half the neighborhood.”

The group is also concerned that the 15-story building would block Pearl District residents’ view of the Willamette River, another aspect of the city’s stated design guidelines.

“What happens is usually there’s a lot of apathy; neighbors appeal and they lose and say, ‘well, you can’t fight city hall,’” Francis said. “But it’s not going down that way this time. This is what happens when a neighborhood group actually reads the design guidelines and says, ‘Hey, we really want this appealed.’ ”

The appellants and the developer will have their hearing in front of the City Council on April 8, at 3 p.m., at the Bureau of Development Services, 1221 S.W. Fourth Ave., Room 140.

[maccoinnich]

It's tough to tell whether that lawyer doesn't understand the Portland Zoning Code, or if he's pretending that he doesn't understand it so that he can bill lots of hours. Here is the relevant text from section 3:

D. General bonus heights. Bonus height is also earned at certain locations in addition to the bonus floor area achieved through the bonus options. Bonus height is in addition to the maximum heights of Map 510-3. Qualifying areas, shown on Map 510-3, are located such that increased height will not violate established view corridors, the preservation of the character of historical districts, the protection of public open spaces from shadow, and the preservation of the City's visual focus on important buildings (such as the Union Station Clock Tower).

Note that it doesn't say that view of the Union Station Clock Tower have to preserved from any location. It says that one of the intents of Map 510-3 is preserve the visual focus of the Union Station Clock Tower. If you then go to that map, you see that areas immediately surrounding the station aren't eligible for bonuses. Block 136 is located in an area where bonuses are explicitly allowed by the map. And God only know how he's interpreting that paragraph such that it doesn't apply to residential buildings.

[tworivers]

Truly mind-boggling. I can't believe that this is happening in the Pearl, of all places.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I hate groups like this, we should be building taller downtown because it is downtown. Groups like this act like they are trying to preserve single family homes in the suburbs.

Is Preserve the Pearl another Allan Classen publication?

[maccoinnich]

Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council [PDF - 10MB], scheduled for April 8th. I started reading it, but the arguments are so barely coherent I gave up.

(For comedy value alone, you can visit the website of the law firm representing Preserve the Pearl.)

[i2m]

The key spokespersons in this appeal claim that they are non self serving and protecting their views yet all live in the edge. My guess is that they all live in ear facing units whose views will be blocked by the new building.

The edge blocked views of ancient houses to the west of them and this new building will block views from the edge and some future building will block views from this new building,

The design commission and the zoning code doesn't protect views,

This attempt to derail the new tower is a huge waste of time and money. There is no legal basis to over rule the design commission and frankly the new zoning allows and encourages more development like this.

I would think smart people could understand the plsnning principles and understand that there is a tidal wave of movement towards more dense development as there should be.

[Encolpius]

What residents of The Edge are protesting today will be incensing residents of the Block 136 tower tomorrow. It's the same phenomenon that happens at the exurban fringes of the city: privileged property owners believe they have a right to amenities they've usurped from everyone else -- whether proximity to undeveloped spaces or, in this case, views of the river, mountains, Union Station, etc. It's clear from the name of their building what The Edge condo owners originally thought they were buying -- views that would be protected by height limits on the property surrounding them. Given that these limits appear to be quite elastic in actual practice, I'm not surprised these condo owners are upset.

When height limits are enforced selectively and arbitrarily, it puts the city in the position of picking winners and losers in this speculative real estate economy. Wasn't that essentially how Amanda Fritz felt about the loosening of height restrictions along the waterfront? Inane controversies like this one between residents of The Edge and the developers of Block 136 unfortunately augur a depressing prospect of our future: the more luxury condominium towers we build, particularly on sites attractive by virtue of their 'views' (North Pearl, South Waterfront, Old Town if height restrictions are eased), the more downtown residents we'll have who care more about protecting their property investments (which depend on monopoly of an appropriated resource) than about the vitality of our streets and neighborhoods.

[maccoinnich]

You are buying into the rhetoric of Preserve the Pearl if you think building heights are being "enforced selectively and arbitrarily". Heights are in fact explicitly stated in the zoning code, and the Design Commission / BDS are prohibited from approving modifications to allowable height. The Portland Zoning Code is not always the the easiest document to understand, but that is not grounds for an appeal. In the 12 years since the Edge Lofts were built there have been no changes to the allowable heights in the Pearl south of Lovejoy. Here is the height map for the Pearl:



NW 13th & Johnson is shown as having a 75' base height, but also has a diagonal hatch that indicates that the site is "eligible for general and housing height bonus" [emphasis mine]. Section 33.510.210 "Floor Area and Height Bonus Options" lists the various ways ways in which bonus height can be obtained. Here is the diagram from the Block 136 Design Review package illustrating how the allowable height was obtained for this site:



(And FWIW Amanda Fritz had no objection to the proposed height increases in the Pearl.)

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

What residents of The Edge are protesting today will be incensing residents of the Block 136 tower tomorrow. It's the same phenomenon that happens at the exurban fringes of the city: privileged property owners believe they have a right to amenities they've usurped from everyone else -- whether proximity to undeveloped spaces or, in this case, views of the river, mountains, Union Station, etc. It's clear from the name of their building what The Edge condo owners originally thought they were buying -- views that would be protected by height limits on the property surrounding them. Given that these limits appear to be quite elastic in actual practice, I'm not surprised these condo owners are upset.

When height limits are enforced selectively and arbitrarily, it puts the city in the position of picking winners and losers in this speculative real estate economy. Wasn't that essentially how Amanda Fritz felt about the loosening of height restrictions along the waterfront? Inane controversies like this one between residents of The Edge and the developers of Block 136 unfortunately augur a depressing prospect of our future: the more luxury condominium towers we build, particularly on sites attractive by virtue of their 'views' (North Pearl, South Waterfront, Old Town if height restrictions are eased), the more downtown residents we'll have who care more about protecting their property investments (which depend on monopoly of an appropriated resource) than about the vitality of our streets and neighborhoods.

My solution? No height restrictions. Buyer beware that future need for housing may block your view.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

When height limits are enforced selectively and arbitrarily, it puts the city in the position of picking winners and losers in this speculative real estate economy.

Actually, I manage permits for my company and I can tell you, height limits are NOT enforced selectively and arbitrarily. As demonstrated above, there is clearly a zoning code that all developers and property owners are subject to. It's amended through a public process, as desired by local jurisdiction.

One alternative is to artificially set all height limits too low and require a discretionary process to approve increases in height. That would be selective and arbitrary based on what the commission feels is acceptable - a mark that would certainly change over time with composition of the commission. Thank goodness this isn't the case.

[Encolpius]

Sorry, I chose my words poorly. I shouldn't have claimed the process is 'selective and arbitrary', since I unlike some of you I don't have first-hand knowledge about how it actually works. What I should have said is this: the enforcement of height limits often appears selective and arbitrary for the following reasons:

1) The zoning code is quite complicated. Those like Red_PDXer whose job it is to understand the code may indeed understand it, but to a layman it's far from intuitively transparent that a building in a block zoned with a max. height of 75' should end up being built to twice that height based on bonuses for having residential units, a rooftop garden and a green roof.

2) Some of the bonuses are classed as 'discretionary'. What does this mean? If it means that the Design Commission has some kind of role in deciding which buildings qualify based on subjective design considerations, well, that would make the process appear 'selective'.

3) The city council has just made sweeping changes to zoning heights in the Pearl under the West Quadrant Plan. If I'm reading the map correctly, that max. height of 75' along NW 12th just increased to 250'? Without quibbling about specifics, these maps and their revisions can often appear arbitrary at best, or molded in accordance with the agenda of certain well-placed developers at worst. From the Brad Schmidt Oregonian article that maccoinnich posted:

Fritz objected to proposed height increases at the Morrison and Hawthorne bridgeheads, saying new limits of 250 feet or 325 feet are too high and don't offer an appropriate step down to Waterfront Park. Today's restrictions are 75 feet and 235 feet.

But the rest of the City Council and planners disagreed with Fritz, noting that Multnomah County is interested in building a new courthouse at the Hawthorne bridgehead, and Melvin Mark Development Co. wants to build at the Morrison bridgehead.

Fritz also scoffed at a proposal to increase height limits mostly along the Willamette River between the Broadway and Fremont bridges. The existing maximum is 175 feet; the new policy calls for up to 250 feet if developers offer some sort of public benefit.

That change would affect only a handful of properties, including land owned by the Portland Development Commission such as Centennial Mills, which could be redeveloped by the Schnitzer family's Harsch Investment Properties; property held the Naito family; land owned by developer Jim Winkler; and property owned by developer Yoshio Kurosaki.

It's not Fritz making accusations here, it's the reporter and the other council members themselves pointing out how the zoning changes accord with the development plans of Multnomah County, Melvin Mark Development Co., the Schnitzers, 'developer Jim Winkler' and 'developer Yoshio Kurosaki'.

And again, 'up to 250 feet if the developers offer some sort of public benefit'?! Is this just poor reporting or is the code actually as pliable as this description would make it appear?

The point is this: fights over new development will continue to happen as long as the city's algorithms for determining height limits escape the grasp of most people who live in downtown Portland. And condo owners who paid exorbitantly for their precious views will fight tooth-and-nail to defend them, no matter how much litigation and headache this costs the city or how much it vitiates the public planning process in the meantime.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

If I'm reading the map correctly, that max. height of 75' along NW 12th just increased to 250'?

This isn't an apples to apples to comparison because you are comparing the height without bonuses to the height with bonuses. Like many cities in the USA, Portland operates a bonus system where certain height can only be obtained after the provision of some kind of public benefit. The current height maximums in the Pearl south of Lovejoy are 150'/175' with bonuses, and these will increase to 250' with bonuses once the Zoning Code revision are written. The heights will also reduce to 100' along the NW 13th Ave historic district.

The current zoning in the Pearl dates back to the last Central City Plan produced in 1988, which was amended in the 1990s by the River District Plan. What's significant about that is that the zoning for the Pearl predates the Pearl. At the time the current code was written it wasn't at all certain that anyone would want to live in the decaying industrial area north of Burnside. It was even less clear that developers would be willing to build the amount of housing the City wanted. One of the ways the City tried to incentivize housing was to provide bonus heights for projects that included housing. To bring this back on topic (hi MarkDaMan!) Block 136 gained its 75' of additional height / FAR because it provides housing. They gained some additional FAR through the provision of rooftop gardens and an ecoroof, but they actually can't use it because the max FAR for the site is capped at 7:1. These bonuses will be eliminated in the next zoning code as they have largely served their purpose, and aren't needed anymore. The "public benefits" mentioned by Brad Schmidt are still to be determined (the new zoning code isn't written yet; the Comprehensive plan merely sets the direction) but are likely to fall into one of three categories: bonuses for affordable housing; bonuses/transfers for historic preservation; and bonuses for Greenway provision along the Waterfront.

Yes, the zoning code is complicated. It's 1000s of pages long. My job would be a lot easier if it were simpler. But it's not arbitrary. The recently adopted West Quadrant Plan went through years of planning and public meetings, and everything in it was vetted by a stakeholders advisory committee. The height increases in the Pearl are supported by the neighborhood association.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

2) Some of the bonuses are classed as 'discretionary'. What does this mean? If it means that the Design Commission has some kind of role in deciding which buildings qualify based on subjective design considerations, well, that would make the process appear 'selective'.

I thought I would answer this question directly. Here is the relevant portion of the Zoning Code that applies to the discretionary 30':

Approval Criteria. The approval of the bonus height is made as part of the design review of the project. The bonus height may be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that all of the following criteria have been met:

a. The increased height will not violate an established view corridor;
b. If the site is within 500 feet of an R zone, the proposed building will not cast shadows that have significant negative impacts on dwelling units in
R zoned lands;
c. If the site is shown on Map 510-3 as eligible for the Open Space (OS) performance standard, the project must meet the performance standards of Subsection 33.510.205.E.;
d. If the site is on a block adjacent to the Yamhill or Skidmore Fountain/Old Town Historic Districts, the project must meet the performance standards of Subsection 33.510.205.D.;
e. The increased height will result in a project that better meets the applicable design guidelines; and
f. Approval of the increased height is consistent with the purposes stated in Subsection 33.510.205.A.

Criteria a, b, c and d were not relevant to this project because it's not located in any of those locations, which are specifically mapped elsewhere in the code. Criteria e and f basically give the review body (in this case the Design Commission) the ability to approve the additional height or not. Design Review is a discretionary process by its very nature, but the Zoning Code gives very specific instructions about what is within their power to review. For example the Design Commission has no power to regulate the number of parking spaces in a project, but they can regulate the location of an entry into a parking garage. In this case, what the zoning code says is that the Design Commission is allowed to approve extra height, but only if they find that it makes the project better. Elsewhere in the code it states that the maximum bonus allowed is 75', no matter how the project gained it.

In the case of Block 136, the Pearl District Neighborhood Association gave the developer some very specific requests: keep the building lower than allowed on NW 13th Ave; keep the courtyard at ground level so the public can access it; and consider adding an office use to the project to bring back the daytime life lost by the relocation of PNCA. The development team complied with all those requests, and that is part of the reason the Design Commission concluded that the additional height was warranted.

[cailes]

I feel about 10 times smarter after reading all of that.

Bravo.

[Encolpius]

Indeed, thanks for taking the time to clarify those points.

[maccoinnich]

This article is a couple weeks old, but still relevant:

Preserve the Pearl faces 'Godzilla' of development



“The word is out,” Burton Francis, a lawyer who lives in the Edge Lofts, says from a table at Urban Grind Coffee in the Pearl District. “Portland is on the block, it’s for sale. And this is our great opportunity to become like ... Seattle!”

Francis and neighbors Seth Johnson and Tom Lawwill, citizen members of Preserve the Pearl, have galvanized around the Portland Design Commission’s approval of Seattle-based Security Properties’ design application to build a 15-story, 150-foot apartment/office tower on what’s known as Block 136.

Preserve the Pearl LLC has filed an appeal to that decision; Francis wrote the brief.

The area west of The Edge Lofts, where the three live, previously had 75-foot building height limits.*

Security Properties bought Block 136, located on Northwest Johnson Street between 12th and 13th avenues, from Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) in 2013 for $11.5 million.

...continues at the Portland Tribune.

*as I pointed out above, this is not true.

[2oh1]

I think developers should consider giving these upcoming projects temporary working names such as The Edge 2 and The Edge 3 just for the sake of highlighting the hypocrisy of it all.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I think developers should consider giving these upcoming projects temporary working names such as The Edge 2 and The Edge 3 just for the sake of highlighting the hypocrisy of it all.

I love it!

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

The point is this: fights over new development will continue to happen as long as the city's algorithms for determining height limits escape the grasp of most people who live in downtown Portland. And condo owners who paid exorbitantly for their precious views will fight tooth-and-nail to defend them, no matter how much litigation and headache this costs the city or how much it vitiates the public planning process in the meantime.

If someone is putting that much money on a view, they should sure as hell check with the city on what is allowed that might block it. If I'm in a building yea tall, I would guess that a building could be built across the street the same height for starters. Seeing all the cranes in the Pearl and downtown over the past 10 years, I fail to understand any other logic. They can sue all they want, but they there's no sympathy on the City Council, Design Commission, Planning Commission, City staff, and most of the general public when a resident moving the Pearl district is offended by follow-on development hardly different than their own. And the lawsuit will be unsuccessful.

Real estate agents are the worst. Back when I worked for a city I would routinely have to deal with new homeowners misinformed by a real estate agent about what was allowed on either their property or the properties near them.