HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Work PLANNER 4/29/2013 • • No-ZS Fir\
MoLLt-f
PRE13-00012— Patel / Candlewood Suites
• Community has spent decades planning Glenwood—public has affirmed and reaffirmed
support for Glenwood to be re-developed into a river-oriented, mixed-use, pedestrian and
transit oriented place—a unique place, a special place—sense of place and distinctiveness—
very deliberative process most recently with GRP update to support implementation of this
vision.
• Thank you for the opportunity w/ land Mr. Patel owns and property City selling to partner to
kick off the implementation of this vision—the unique position of being the western most
development—entryway to Glenwood and proximity to UO—can showcase the future of
Glenwood and signal entrance to a truly unique place--from FB and from 1-5—and from
across river.
• Mr. Satre—with us all along the way—Springfield resident—what an opportunity to help
shape the first major private investment in Glenwood following adoption of the GRP update.
• Section 3.4-215 requires a Development Issues Meeting or a Pre-Application Report for all
proposed development within the Glenwood Riverfront as specified in Section 5.1-120. An
Annexation DIM does not meet this requirement. Makes first meeting less adversarial—less
about you are incomplete for x reasons and more about this is what we're looking for, and
let's work together. Would be opportunity to discuss unique setting and local vision with out
of town architect and engineer. Do they even know this is across the street from the
Willamette River? Also opportunity to share the applicable regulations and talk about
modification and/or exemption processes if applicable.
• Note—Contrary to what applicant asserts,the proposed submittal does result in the types of
modifications to the streetscape and street design indicated that would be considered Minor
Modifications in 3.4-230 and the types of modifications to the building design standards that
would be considered a Major Modification. Re: Building design standards, applicant may
alternatively request an exemption from or alternative to meet the standards as outlined in
3.4-235.
• Find out more about phased development—what are likely uses of future development on
Tax Lot 100—see 3.4-245 for uses and configuration of uses permitted. Also, see 3.4-240 for
information on how to submit a phased development plan or master plan depending on
timeframe of phasing.
3.4-270
A. Plan talks about vision for FB. The section of FB abutting the property is planned as a
'modern urban arterial'—which is not as the right-of-way is today. The frontage of proposed
development must be upgraded to comply with Franklin Boulevard modern urban arterial
design policies of Appendix 3 and EDSPM.
B. As stated above, the FB frontage will need to be upgraded and compliance with Street Trees
and Curbside Planter Strips—see Appendix 3 and EDSPM.
C. See above. Decorative public street lighting and pedestrian level lighting shall be included.
Does private lighting comply?
D. Bicycle facilities—on-street has not been addressed. Off-street bike parking does not meet
standards of 14—specifically for long-term and also for location of short term (a &d).
F. Applicant only addressed the General Landscaping Standards—must also address Landscape
Standard Categories where applicable (i.e. L1 for setbacks and L2 & L3 for parking, screening
of utilities—.note code language and IGA w/SUB)—show images from code
Date Received: 1 del
Planner: AL
r _ • •
G. Section 5 states that surface parking facilities are permitted when located in interior courts—
the proposed parking would not be considered an 'interior court' —not just behind a building
—surrounded by buildings. Definitely no parking on side of building or parking on Lot 100
without more screening as described in L2. At least show how ultimately will be an interior
court.
> Must comply with surface parking design standards of 9—not seeing b. c, and d...
> Access to FB must be closed when future access road built so can meet requirements
for vehicle parking access and driveways—max of 1 per block face and access parking
from local street/service street/alley.
> Also, bike parking does not appear to meet requirements of short and long-term
(secure).
I. Stormwater—does what is proposed meet all applicable policies of Appendix 3 and the
EDSPM? Also, amended citywide stormwater and water quality sections?
N. Is applicable due to 3007 Franklin Boulevard—see 5 for what needs to be included with the
Site Plan submittal.
3.4-275
A. Highlight that this is truly the gateway to Glenwood so what is discussed in A is of upmost
importance. Don't have an answer for how to solve everything below—will have to be an
iterative process with designers.
B. Point out encouragement of designing buildings and site as discussed in 1.
C. I don't see full application of ground floor requirements on all elevations (particularly facing
street)—similarly don't see application of upper story details
D. The L configuration does not meet the intent of the step-backs—massing/as seen from
street. Floor to floor requirements are applicable for ground floor because non-residential—
clarifier was to emphasize that CMU, OMU, EMU
E. Don't see that massing/articulation fully met—see illustrations
F. The ground floor window requirements do apply—intent was office mixed-uses—
differentiations clarify that there are differences for residential, manufacturing, and all other.
G. Intent in the case of this property is for building to be oriented to FB. Language in 4
regarding secondary entrances facing side or rear of buildings clarifies this intent. See Len for
legal technicalities of language. Need to have primary entrance on FB—idea of through entry
like PPSWO.
H. See Exception that ground floor entrances to buildings on FB may be set back a maximum of
4 feet, windows and walls 1 foot.
I. With a setback, need two additional amenities to the ones in a. the wall mounted lights are
required in a so need two others and the other required ones. Not sure the plant beds are
for every 80'. We can get there with changes to bicycle racks, more enhanced entryway on
facade?
•
Date, Received: y/Z 1/40g
Planner: AL
• 2