Comments regarding Weigel Development
Proposal (
Submitted by Andre DeBar
(comments based on plans received by SGNA Land
Use Committee on approximately
General Comments:
The general site plan layout is improved, with four units now facing
onto Multnomah Street, the large maple tree near Multnomah indicated as being
saved, development of a landscape ‘forecourt’ in front of the entries for each
building, and consolidation of overflow/guest parking to five spaces close to
Multnomah Street. There is still room for site plan improvement by increasing side
yard distances and increasing the quality and quantity of landscape
improvements. However, the most significant drawback of the current proposal are the serious building-design flaws including top-heavy
massing of the units, ranch-style roof slopes, and questionable internal
space-planning.
Specific Concerns:
1. Whether or not
the large maple tree can actually be saved seems questionable given the
proximity of one of the units that significantly encroaches into the existing
canopy (and presumably root structure) of the tree.
2. The landscaping
plan improvements seem to be minimal around the units. Room for improvement exists primarily in more
trees along the main drive and upgrading shrub-type plantings in front of
units. There also seems to be an overuse of bark dust as a landscape material.
3. The twelve units
not facing Multnomah seem very cramped as evidenced by only eight feet as the
typical dimension between second floors of adjacent buildings.
4. The building
massing is very awkward and top-heavy since each second floor overhangs the
first floor by three feet for the entire side yard length of the each building
(this configuration may be a way to decrease effective side-yard setbacks and
thereby squeeze units tighter together).
5. The roof slopes
are suburban and ranch-style and not in keeping with the general historic
character of the neighborhood. The units
would look better and be more in keeping with the neighborhood character by
increasing the roof pitch to at least
6. The unit floor
plans are heavily weighed toward floor area on the second floor (bedrooms/full
bathrooms) which seem very underserved by the minimal
area allotted to common living spaces (living/dining/kitchen) on the first
floor. For example, the combined dining/living space appears to be only 13 feet
by 17 feet for a three bedroom, two and a half bath,
2000+ square foot unit. This could be a serious limitation to the market value
and quality of each unit and therefore the quality of the entire development.
Additionally, this floor plan imbalance creates (or is a result of) the
top-heavy building massing mentioned above.
7. No building materials
are indicated on the documents. This
information is needed to better understand the qualitative character of the
development.
(End of comments)