The Southwest Portland Post. (Portland, Oregon) 2007-current, April 01, 2018, Page 7, Image 7

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    April 2018
NEWS
The Southwest Portland Post • 7
Multnomah NA loses appeals to Land Conservation and Development Commission
FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK
By Don Snedecor
The Southwest Portland Post
According to Jim Peterson, Multnomah
land use chair, “The Multnomah Neigh-
borhood Association filed objections to the
2035 Comprehensive Plan. On March 15,
the Land Conservation and Development
Commission rejected all appeals.
“The MNA is exploring all options and
has reached out to a land use organization
and other neighborhood associations to
help take the appeals to the Oregon Court
of Appeals.”
“The decision undermines the impor-
tance of citizen testimony and Oregon’s
land use goals as determining factors into
the land use planning process,” said Peter-
son. “We are now depending on the courts
to uphold the law.”
According to Peterson, the neighbor-
hood’s objections were prepared by Fodor
and Associates and reviewed by land use at-
torneys Bill Kabeiseman and Carrie Richter
before being filed with the State of Oregon.
What follows is a partial transcript of the
staff recommendation of the Land Conser-
vation and Development Commission to
reject one of the neighborhood’s objections
to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan—that
the city of Portland failed to adequately
consider the 2000 Southwest Community
Plan or protect a potential historic district
in Multnomah Village.
The Multnomah Neighborhood
Association objected to the City of
Portland’s decision to rezone much
of the Multnomah Village Neighbor-
hood Center area to the CM2 zoning
district, which the association asserts
allows densities, intensities, and build-
ing heights that are excessive for the
Multnomah Village Neighborhood
Center Area.
After the director’s decision rejected
this objection, the association filed an
appeal of that decision.
Before discussion of the specific is-
sues raised in the appeal, it should be
noted that the remedy proposed by the
Multnomah Neighborhood Associa-
tion is that the commission partially
Multnomah Historical Association holds
annual meeting, seeks more volunteers
By Erik Vidstrand
The Southwest Portland Post
The Multnomah Historical Associa-
tion held its annual meeting on March
14 at the Multnomah Arts Center.
Three dozen people listened as Tim
Lyman, president, gave an overview,
explaining that the organization houses
a history center, a website, as well as a
vast archives in storage.
Additionally, the association pro-
vides presentations to the public.
“Last year,” Lyman said, “we sent
out electronic newsletters on a regular
basis and held presentations at local
libraries. Paper newsletters are no more
due to costs.”
There are about 160 members. Regu-
lar membership is $20 a year and $12
for seniors.
Founded by parents after the 1979
closure of Multnomah School, the
association continues its mission of
preserving the buildings, history, sto-
ries, photos, and memorabilia of the
community.
Due in part to the efforts of the
association, the school became the
Multnomah Center, which includes
The Multnomah Theatre, circa 1946.
(Photo courtesy of J.L.. "Bill" Cate)
the arts center, Neighborhood House
Senior Center, Southwest Neighbor-
hoods, Inc., and other community
organizations. The center is owned
and operated by Portland Parks &
Recreation.
Lyman said the group has some cash
reserves, but new resources are needed.
“We need volunteers with grant
writing experience and computer
knowledge.”
Anyone wishing to volunteer, do-
nate, or for more information, should
visit www.multnomahhistorical.com.
remand Task 5 of the periodic review to
reconsider application of the CM1 zon-
ing district in the Multnomah Village
area to reflect the community character
issue and topography and also apply a
zoning district with clear and objective
standards addressing the association’s
concerns.
Failure to Direct Planning Actions
in a Manner That Would Achieve
Local Goals and Be Consistent
With Past Planning Efforts
The appeal asserts that the city failed
to direct planning actions in a manner
that would achieve local goals and be
consistent with past planning efforts.
The appeal notes that the 2000
Southwest Community Plan (SWCP)
planned for a “small-town” atmo-
sphere for Multnomah Village, with
height and design of buildings appro-
priate for the neighborhood, with a mix
of residential and neighborhood-scale
commercial development.
The appeal contends the SWCP is not
mentioned in the recommended draft
for Mixed Use Zoning Districts, which
applies the CM2 district to Multnomah
Village.
The appeal also contends this action
violates the citizen involvement provi-
sions of the SWCP, which state, “use
the Southwest Community Plan poli-
cies and objectives to create, develop,
implement or evaluate new citywide
policies, programs, or project propos-
als to ensure that the concerns of the
Southwest community are addressed.”
In addition, as noted by the appel-
lant, Multnomah Village has been
identified in the past as worthy of a
historic district designation, which
makes it a Goal 5 resource; the CM2
zoning ignores this history, and thus
violates Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Department Response:
The department recommends that
this portion of the appeal be rejected by
the commission. The city is not bound
by the language or contents of the 2000
Southwest Community Plan.
The purpose of periodic review is
to update and, where appropriate,
modify the city’s previously adopted
comprehensive plan and implement-
ing land use regulations.
In any case, the city’s decision to
mix the CM1 and CM2 districts in
Multnomah Village, with the CM1
district being applied to a part of the
village core area, is consistent with
the excerpts from the 2000 community
plan for Multnomah Village provided
in the appeal.
Regarding the Goal 5 issue, the
appellant has not demonstrated that
Multnomah Village is a significant
historic resource in the city’s compre-
hensive plan.
The city is not obligated by the provi-
sions of Goal 5 to protect any particular
historic character within an area un-
less the resource has been found to be
significant and the city has decided to
protect it under its historic preservation
ordinance.