HomeMy WebLinkAboutOccupancy Correspondence 1988-6-7
.
.
~f;>~
SPRINGFIELD
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Office of Community & Economic Development
Planning and Development Department
June 7, 1988
Mr. Stu Burge
President, Metco Investment Realty, Inc.
315 E. 13th Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Subject: City Requirements
Of~O Olympic S~
u. ,_ ______
Dear Mr. Burge:
It has been brought to our attention that a potential tenant for a building at
3520 Olympic Street has chosen not to lease this building because of the City's
"landscaping review" requirement. While I share your concern at the loss of a new
business and the continued vacancy of a valuable asset, I am equally concerned
that you may not have received an accurate explanation of our occupancy
requirements in general, and how they apply to this building in particular.
The City's Development Code implements several Council goals and objectives. One
of these goals, enhanced City appearance, is partly realized through the
installation of sidewalks, paved parking and landscaping. These improvements,
referred to as "Minimum Development Standards" are required whenever a change in
use occurs in an existing commercial or industrial building or lot. A change in
use is determined to occur anytime a new use does not devote at least 51% of its
total operations to the same use as the most recent tenant.
City staff have been told on several occasions that these improvements are
unreasonable, expensive and do nothing for the business. These criticisms have
prompted staff to discuss this issue with the Planning Commission and City Council
at separate work sessions in November of 1986 and November of 1987. At each of
these meetings the Planning Commission and City Council reaffirmed their desire to
have these improvements installed and to continue to use a "change in use" as the
.trigger mechanism. The Commission and Council acknowledged that additional costs
would result from this provision, but the practice of requiring only new
construction to install these improvements was considered unfair and would not
effectively implement the long term goal of an enhanced City appearance.
While the wording and intent of the Code is clear, each new occupancy is evaluated
individually to ascertain if and how minimum development standards apply.
Depending on the circumstances unique to the property and proposed use, staff does
have some interpretive latitude to determine the timing and location of
improvements.
225 Fifth Street . Springfield, OR 97477 · 503/726-3753
.
.
There are circumstances unique to the 3520 Olympic Street property that make the
strict adherence to minimum development standards impractical for both the
property owner and the City. I had the opportunity to discuss these circumstances
with Greg Herbert and Harry Ashburn on May 24th. I do not know if the substance
of our conversation was relayed to you, but in abbreviated form I explained that
the two minimum development standards that applied to this property (landscaping
and sidewalks) could be postponed until the City initiates the Olympic Street
improvement project, now scheduled in our Capital Improvement Plan for 1991. I
felt this delay could be justified because of the possibility of damage to these
improvements during the construction of the street. In the spirit of this
compromise, I asked for the following information prior to occupancy by a new
tenant:
1. a landscape plan showing the driveways and landscaped areas.
2. an a9reement, signed and recorded by the property owner, to install these
improvements at the time of the Olympic Street construction project.
3. a request to consult with the Building Division whenever a change in occupancy
occurs.
Under the circumstances I think this is a reasonable application of our Code and
certainly provides the owner with sufficient time to plan for the costs of these
improvements. In regard to cost, especially as it relates to landscaping, the
Code requirements are very basic. Except for street trees at 30 foot intervals,
all landscaped areas can be planted with drought resistant plants that neither
require irrigation or interfere with window displays.
I fully understand the position that unnecessary government interference inhibits
or otherwise affects the market place. What I hope you will perceive from these
Code provisions is a sincere attempt to improve the appearance of the City at a
very basic level. Once these improvements are completed, this prpvision has the
affect of sunsetting on itself; no further review is required.
I apologize if any of the City's development standards have come as a surprise to
you or your clients. We do offer a service, called a pre-application conference,
that is designed to provide answers to all development Questions, including the
reuse of existing buildings. The pre-application conference is free of charge,
requires a minimum of effort on the part of the applicant, and can usually be
scheduled within 5 to 7 days of our receipt of the application. I would urge you
~o take advantage of this service whenever you receive a listing or request for
commercial or industrial properties in Springfield. I think once you have
participated in this conference, whether you agree with our standards or not, you
will agree that the information we provide is extremely useful to your business.
If you have any Questions about our Code, particularly about the reuse of
commercial or industrial buildings, please contact me at your convenience.
~,~
Gregory S. Mott
Development Code Administrator