The Albert Apartments Proposed for Williams Corridor in Boise

Interesting. RUJAX huh? I remember seeing a design review from Myrhe group before the building was torn down. Then again, Myrhe is involved in the now defunct project on Interstate and Skidmore that is now a fenced block of abandoned boarded up houses that aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Hopefully this project will get off the ground and finished.

RUJAX is the developer, LRS is the architect. To me, they sounded fairly confident that this project would go forward. But with financing what it is these days, its never a sure thing until you have financing. Hopefully it will get done, but at least the lot is now empty rather than a old boarded up building.

Thanks for your comment!

Just as long as it doesn't morph into Fremont and MLK...Ugh. WTF happened there?

It's unfortunate that the planner didn't notify and include in the public commenting process the neighbors living on the block facing this building from the behind. Many are elderly having lived on the street for 50-60 years. Many are frustrated and confused that the planner would sign off on such a dramatic and enormous change of use w/o community input. They feel like they are getting bullied. This is a horrible example of the demographic and cultural inclusiveness the City touts it follows in it's planning mandates. It's a working class neighborhood that is without a voice if the planner doesn't extend a meaningful hand.

T. A. Olson, Thanks for your comment. For a Type II Design Review the City mails the Notice to public agencies and property owners within 150 feet of the site. I’m not certain, but I believe that those who rent may not receive the notice. There is a 21-day comment period where the public can submit comments to the City. Download the Type II Land Use Review Procedure, or visit the BDS page that explains all forms of design review. If you believe that the procedure was not properly followed or have any other questions, I encourage you to contact the Land Use Services contact listed on the notice: Chris Caruso, 503-823-5747 or by email Christine.Caruso@ci.portland.or.us.

And another thing, T.A., it's not like "the planner" has broad discretion here. If the proposal conforms to existing zoning, the project gets approved. End of story.

I just received the planning approval, and am confused where all of the energy efficiency features that were described above went. The approved development now consists of 56 foot concrete walls with fiberglass panels and metal roll-up doors. No mention of solar or storm water utilization. Also, the building does not conform to the scope of the neighborhood or provide any historical architectural features. The developer asked for and received modification variances without any justification. Smells like what happened on Mississippi... Looks like shooter got sold a bill o' goods. The neighborhood is pissed. WTF?

We are still planning to use the solar, LED lights and recycled material building boards (in various textures and sizes) along with a energy efficient fiberglass windows rather than a aluminum storefront system. Not only does this save energy it allows us to use a window that is more in keeping with the older commercial buildings along Williams. The Grey water system fell victim to the Bureau of Environmental Services. Originally we had planned a cistern system to hold the rainwater and slowly release it to the sewer system. Because this was part of the building costs we could tap this water for the toilets but with the new Storm Water Management System we are required to use a deep dry-well system to return the water back to the earth.

The building that was approved had significant design changes that were suggested by the Planning Department and covers less area and height than is allowed by the EX zone. We worked hard to keep some elements that would provide a connection to the existing neighborhood and have the least impact to the residences to the East. On the East side, the building is a U shape so it exceeds, by far, the setback requirements for a majority of this facade. We also eliminated outside decks and exterior lighting along the East facade to reduce the intrusion into the adjoining neighborhood. We have provided parking when none is required by this zone and space for bicycles, scooters and a ZIP rental car to eliminate the majority of the auto impact on the neighborhood. I realize that this is a huge change for the neighborhood but in the terms of sustainability it is much less impact on the earth to group people together in an energy efficient well design building than to spread out in single family residences. The increased residential base will provide a sustainable customer base for the emerging business along Williams and the neighborhood association. Our hope is the residents that chose to live here are making a statement about choosing a sustainable lifestyle that will carry over in their personal lives and influence the community around them.

RUJAX is one of the more enlighten developers that I have worked with. They are truly concerned about providing a good, healthy, environmentally sound environment for their residents. They have been building rental apartments in Portland for many years and keep their buildings rather than sell them to some out of town management fund. They take great pride in their buildings and keep them well maintained; they will be a good neighbor.

We have heard that the neighborhood association is planning to appeal the approval for The Albert. Early on we sent out notifications to the neighborhood associations and requested to present our ideas for the building at their next meeting. We did not receive any replies back. We hope that this appeal is supported by a majority of the neighborhood residents not just a few. If this appeal goes forward we look forward to an open positive discussion about the building's true impact on a local, city , global and future environment.

@Boise Resident: I spoke with Chris Caruso, the Design Planner who reviewed and approved The Albert. According to Caruso, the information included in Design Review notices is only what is needed to establish whether or not a project meets the City’s Design Guidelines. The detailed specifications for the entire project are not included, because much of that information is not relevant to design review. Because green features are not considered in the Design Review process, they are not included in the notices—that’s why you didn’t see them in either notice for The Albert. We obtained that information directly from the architect. Although it appears [from the comment from architect Chris Peterson] that many of the proposed green elements are still being pursued and [according to page 5 of the design review decision]: “the building will be using a number of sustainable elements as it seeks a LEED Silver rating.”



The modification requests were included in the original land use notice sent to the neighborhood association and property owners within 150 feet of the project. There were four responses from neighbors noted in the land use decision: one specifically addressing the set backs, one mentioning the set backs and two others with broader concerns. According to Caruso, the modification requests met design guidelines and were passed. [Page 5, comment 3: “the building does set back farther than required along a majority of the east property line.”]



As mentioned by Chris Peterson and noted in the Staff Response section of the Design Review, the developer sent certified letters to both the Boise Neighborhood Association and Northeast Coalition of Neighbors and offered to present the project and start a dialogue with neighbors. As noted in the land use decision, neither association responded.

Of the four responses, one was a 14-person signed petition opposed to the project based on the number of stories, overall scale, and parking ratio. It would be interesting to know specifically how many notifications were sent to surrounding residents within 150 feet. Maybe Chris Caruso can provide that data? Although the parking ratio issue is moot, the other issues were not addressed. Replacing a streetcar era commercial building built in 1909 with a building that does not meet community design guidelines as set forth in Portland's zoning code approval criteria (despite the weak arguments of planning staff on pages 6-8 of the decision) is offensive. Take a look at a rendering of the Queen Anne Victorian (c.1889) located at 3700 N Williams Ave next to the proposed development, then try again to make the argument that this building fits into the neighborhood. Is it really financially unfeasible to to drop the building by one floor? And to add some cool old architectural styling features? Really? This is where we live. Why not make it great?