From: Lynne Coward lcoward@imagina.com

Date: October 23, 2006 5:42:06 PM PDT

Subject: Notes from 10/19 Design Review: Albina Redevelopment

On Thursday October 19th, Gary Naylor, Brad Perkins and I were on hand for the Design Review Commission's first hearing of the Albina Redevelopment. Initially scheduled to be first on the agenda, we were preceded by two appeal cases---getting up to bat at 6 pm and staying until 9. The development team having driven down from Seattle had endured an even longer wait! Justin Dollard, the staff planner got home at 11pm.

But it was worth it. The plan has progressed. The site layout, building orientation and massing are accepted. (Of particular interest to me was the staff's taking our TGM plan for the site and showing how this proposal actually mimics the basic layout and massing of our plan.) The development team (from Seattle) asked for a conditioned approval, unaware that Portland requires a greater degree of specificity in even its plans. I was glad for this as the primary concern from the staff and commission was how the materials--such as concrete board--is going to be handled so that it will last several decades.

The design has progressed significantly since our Sept. 28 meeting. In particular, the facades of the Broadway facing buildings are more articulated and varied. One can see volumes more reflective of the housing across the street in Grant Park. The proposed signage was varied, and each building had its distinctive features. The roof line is still too uniform despite added clearstories.

Each of us as we testified spoke to the desire for family units. While the Commission cannot technically address this issue, we wanted it in the record in case we appeal the case to Council.

The hearing was continued until December 7 when it will be first on the agenda.

Below are my condensed notes taken from the comments made by each Commission member at the end of the session.

How materials come together for quality and permanence? While the buildings are residential, the scale of the development is commercial.

Connecting bridges--would prefer access from Broadway instead.

Flat roof line along Broadway--too uniform. Build in additional height at both NE 33rd and 32nd.

The eastern end. The architect had pushed back by two feet the 33rd Ave. end of the Broadway facing bldg. and replaced the "slag" with a "monument" denoting entrance to the Gulch Trail. This feature needs more work and one commissioner suggested eliminating the planting strip and planting vines along the viaduct wall. Concern was raised lest bikers fly down the path and collide with pedestrians. Another commissioner suggest that the eastern end walls address the large scale of the freeway environment and make a bolder statement and simplify the materials. From a visual perspective---consider the north moving traffic coming from Laurelhurst.

The landscaped area has a "collision of paths" without a good stopping place. Also, provide for public access to the landscaped decks.

Several of the commissioner picked up on our comments regarding family housing and hoped it would be considered. The development teams claim that market studies point to their mix of small units. Staff pointed out that the 319 unit cap does not limit larger units.

Addendum:

In conversation with the development team: The developer has sent a letter to Metro in support of funding for the Gulch Trail study. The architect Brian Sweeney has volunteered to join us as we advocate at the hearings. It is this type of development at key nodes with 1-84 overpasses which add a dimension to the Gulch Trail's use and importance.