1 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Design Commission Design Advice Request #2 – 2/27/14 EA DAR Goat Blocks Redevelopment

2 Summary & Process Superblock redevelopment with multiple buildings, parking, large and small retailers, and housing; Overall site redevelopment includes approx. 84,000 sf of retail, 257 apartments, and significant auto parking. Type III Design Review will be required. Jan. 6, 2014 – First DAR Jan. 28, 2014 – First DAR notes out, revised drawings rec’d. Feb. 6, 2014 – Second DAR cancelled – snow day Feb. 27, 2014 – Second and final DAR ( plans evolved this month - DZ submittal early March – completeness/second DAR notes crossover )

3 Zoning Map EXd, Central City Plan District/Central Eastside Subdistrict 3:1 FAR (6:1 with housing bonus) 50’ maximum height 95’ if 120Ksf FAR bonus earned 125’ if additional criteria met ( E.4.a-f) Belmont: Required Building Line, Parking Access Restricted Max. Transit Setback: 100% on Belmont, 50% on 11th TSP Belmont: City Walkway, Major Transit Priority 11 th : City Walkway, Transit Access 10 th : Local Service Not a pedestrian district

4 CCPR, Superblock, Modifications, Guidelines CCPR likely required if over 60 non-residential Growth Parking spaces SUPERBLOCK regulations apply to large block. Min. 6,000sf total public walkway/plaza/landscaping (e.g. 30’ x 200’ public access easement), single plaza/atrium space of min. 1,840sf MODIFICATIONS (TBD – no full drawing set/plan check) , Required Building Line (75% building within 12’ of lot line) , Ground Floor Windows ( Active uses behind glass facing Belmont) C.1.d, Maximum Transit Street Setback (100% of building within 10’ of Belmont lot line, 50% on 11th) B, Height (Stairwells no more than 10’ above height limit) ADJUSTMENT F.6, Parking Access Restricted Street (Belmont access) SIGNS – TBD, possible Adjustments/Modifications Central City Fundamentals Central Eastside District Guidelines

5

6 DAR #1 Feedback Belmont Edge/Enclosure/Building Orientation Raised and/or hidden retail is problematic, especially when not visible from street. Grocery entries should be more accessible. Belmont edge needs to be stronger, more urban, pedestrian-focused. East-West Superblock – Yamhill ‘Alley’ More direct, accessible connections to sidewalk, greater width and more retail might help, enclosure and scale is important (need sections), internal walkways need to feel public and open. Other Driveway access onto Belmont is problematic, work with PBOT With any AD/Mod, signage should be special, integrated, high quality Overall Project exciting, general support for concept Maintain authenticity in concept, fertile connection to streetscape/neighborhood is critical (avoid elevated ‘big box’ center) Small-scale/incubator spaces should be accessible from street Baseline street condition at all edges should be excellent, beware of elevated retail Resolving program and architecture conflicts is the biggest issue, landscaping has a key role to play in making this project a success (bring landscape designer)

7 Design Changes since first DAR (1/22/14 drawings) Full 12’ public sidewalk along SE Belmont is now proposed (standard dedications, improvements) Large/grocery retail and small/west retail has been moved closer to Belmont Corner stairs at 10 th & Belmont revised ‘Alley’ in alignment with Yamhill has been re-designed with more retail frontage, regularity, and lowered grade with ramp-only (no stairs) from upper/11 th Avenue side, stadium-like seating added by stairs descending to 10 th Applicant has made changes since 1/221/4 submittal, to be presented today

8 Discussion Topic #1: Belmont Edge/Modifications Is revised massing concept along Belmont successful? Are additional moves/further refinement necessary to strengthen the Belmont frontage? Massing and footprint/stair changes? Is corner at 10 th & Belmont successful? Modifications may still be needed, all related to pedestrian/transit environment along Belmont (Ground Floor Windows, possibly Required Building Line and Maximum Transit Street Setback – TBD)

9 Discussion Topic #2: Yamhill ‘Alley’ and ‘Market Walk’ Have the changes made to this area successful in terms of grade, pedestrian/visual access, and activity/retail on the edges? Are the proportions, width, and sense of enclosure at these spaces successful? Further changes and refinements needed to grades, design, use locations abutting these walkways?

10 Discussion Topics #3 - 5: #3: Materials/Architecture Are conceptual elevations/materials moving in the right direction? Too much cement panel? Other design feedback for individual buildings/spaces helpful. #4: Ground Level/Pedestrianscape South building on main block has many blank walls/service areas at street level – may trigger Ground Floor Windows Modifications. Vegetated trellis screens need to work on their own without plants. Ground level wood panels and durability? Any major red flags on how the project meets street level? #5: Belmont Driveway AD Drawings still show a driveway onto Belmont. If PBOT supports based on use limitations, is this approvable? Other topics at Commissioner Discretion

11 Discussion Topics Summary Belmont Edge/Modifications Is the retail/building wall/stair orientation to Belmont successful? Revised corner stair/entry approvable? Is Belmont active and welcoming to pedestrians on both blocks? Yamhill ‘Alley’ and ‘Market Walk’ Have the changes made to the alley and the north-south ‘market walk’ been successful in terms of grade, pedestrian access and activity/retail? Are the proportions, width, and scale/enclosure of these spaces approvable? Materials/Architecture Didn’t get to this on first DAR, provide as much feedback as possible for the various buildings Ground Level/Pedestrianscape Extensive blank walls on south/hardware building on Taylor & 11 th. Vegetated trellis elements, overall pedestrian-level design feedback. Belmont Driveway AD Discuss revised proposal – will this driveway location work if PBOT accepts? Other topics at Commissioner Discretion

12 fin

13