Central Eastside News - Page 8

65MAX · #**141** Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvalk

Are you sure they have provided the "public access" for a continuation of the Eastbank Esplanade. I actually heard the opposite that they were still fighting that and in oppostion to the idea... which could be a major roadblock with design review and the neighborhood.

I also believe that the HAND neighborhood has not offered a final backing, as they are meeting this week, March 20th is the date I heard.

Yeah, what ANP said.

Hanna has stated publically that he wants to provide public access to the river here, and in fact, if you look at the Land Use Review, there's a plan and a section showing just that. The public walkway is actually bridging over the boat launch ramps. Very cool!!

sirsimon · #**142** Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 10:31 PM**

"The public walkway is actually bridging over the boat launch ramps. Very cool!!"

Nice!!

WonderlandPark · #**143** Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 10:46 PM**

The land use review says option 2, the taller tower is 431' whoa

zilfondel · #**144** Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvalk

Are you sure they have provided the "public access" for a continuation of the Eastbank Esplanade. I actually heard the opposite that they were still fighting that and in oppostion to the idea... which could be a major roadblock with design review and the neighborhood.

There is no design review for industrial sites, only central city ones (downtown, Lloyd District) where they have a 'design review overlay.'

65MAX · #**145** Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 11:03 PM**

Right, this is just a Land Use Review. It's almost a formality since storage uses are allowed outright in Industrial zones, no limitations. There is a Greenway overlay here, but he's already addressed that, and BES has buy-in on it.

Even though there's no design review, Hanna has kept the neighborhood groups in the loop all along. He's not taking anything, or anybody, for granted.

PacificNW · #**146** Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 11:06 PM**

Isn't this proposal intended for storage of boats and autos? Maybe many of the new condo owners have more than one auto. This might be a good option for them...

65MAX · #**147** Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

The land use review says option 2, the taller tower is 431' whoa

That's Elevation 431', not height. If the taller option is 368' high, that means the ground floor of the building sits at 63' above sea level.

kvalk · #**148** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 12:15 AM**

Thanks Zil & ANP. I meant to refer to the the Greenway review rather than design review, because obviously then the connection to the river would be a big issue. However, I didn't realize that there are TWO proposed storage tower developments. Seems kinda excessive, but that's just my own opinion, I like to keep my storage needs to a minimum.

Also, this is besides the point, but there are design review overlays in areas other than the central city, and design review typically means a land use review, type 2 or 3 depending on the scope of work, unless the community design guidelines are met for the particular area...

InlandEmpire · #**149** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 3:14 AM**

wow! I really hope these pan out. I remember the proposal someone posted on here earlier in the year for a storage tower; these ones are really much better looking. Portland showing us all up again with its' innovation.

NW Mike · #**150** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 4:01 AM**

My Jaw has been open for days on this one. I'm still in awe over this. With the simple guidelines for storage facilitys, There is so much money to be made in storage, I would think this would be happening all over the country in big citys. It is so beautiful how it is incorporated into the river use. Turning an industrial location into something great.

mcbaby · #**151** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 4:04 AM**

i'm curious as to why they changed the design from the circular building to the twin structures. anyone know?

tworivers · #**152** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 4:46 AM**

OK, OK! I retire my skepticism!

zilfondel · #**153** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvalk

Also, this is besides the point, but there are design review overlays in areas other than the central city, and design review typically means a land use review, type 2 or 3 depending on the scope of work, unless the community design guidelines are met for the particular area...

Sort of - historic district overlays, such as the one on Mississippi Ave & NW 23rd - require a design review for the purpose of making the building fit in. However, they are generally limited to specific areas of the city. This is an industrial zone.

kvalk · #**154** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 6:59 AM**

actually Zil, check the zoning map for the NE, there are little pockets of design overlay all over the place, up williams, mlk, even Alberta has a couple blocks, way out on interstate, and they are not all for historic districts. The city planners commonly use the design review overlay when changing zoning to appease concerned neighbors. The fact that it's zoned for industrial uses doesn't have much to do with whether it has a "d" design overlay.

anp · #**155** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvalk

However, I didn't realize that there are TWO proposed storage tower developments. Seems kinda excessive, but that's just my own opinion, I like to keep my storage needs to a minimum.

Actually, the SK Northwest proposal is not for a storage facility, but for a repair facility for motorized watercraft such as jetskis. It sounds like there would also be a retail showroom for watercraft. The story is covered pretty thoroughly at bikeportland.org:

http://bikeportland.org/2007/03/12/sk-northwest-tries-again-for-springwater-development/

kvalk · #**156** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 3:30 PM**

Thanks for clarifying anp. I guess because the sites are right next to each other I combined them into one thought.

zilfondel · #**157** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvalk

actually Zil, check the zoning map for the NE, there are little pockets of design overlay all over the place, up williams, mlk, even Alberta has a couple blocks, way out on interstate, and they are not all for historic districts. The city planners commonly use the design review overlay when changing zoning to appease concerned neighbors. The fact that it's zoned for industrial uses doesn't have much to do with whether it has a "d" design overlay.

hmm, very interesting!

PacificNW · #**158** Posted **Apr 2, 2007, 4:13 AM**

I reactivated the thread...

WonderlandPark · #**159** Posted **Apr 2, 2007, 4:25 AM**

I work in this Convention Center building and:

1-Our office has been visited by a few commercial RE agents selling us on new space, but that doesn't matter to the company I work for, a film, we dissolve the company June 1 or something
2-Building maintenance has gone to shit, not even fixing soap dispensers.
3-"This Fall" has been the word for a drop dead date on companies moving out.

That is all I can add.

kvalk · #**160** Posted **Apr 2, 2007, 6:10 PM**

You really like how the Rocket is turning out? Do others agree?
I find those decks extremely clumsy, and that color is truly unfortunate, and it'll get worse as the sun fades it to a pretty pink. Of course sitting next to the rock gym helps it look alot better.