Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 9/7/2011 + CHAMBER'if'COMMERCE City of Springfield 22S Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Attn: Molly Markarian Subject: Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce Review of Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan District Dear Molly and Springfield Staff Members involved with this planning project: On behalf of the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce, acting through their Economic Development Comm)1tee;- ./ we want to provide feedback on the August 2, 2011 draft version of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan District for staff consideration prior to submitting the final draft version for agency approval. We understand that further revisions are being made to the draft throughout the months of August and September, and some of the issues we have concerns about may already be moot. If that is the case, please let us know what related changes were made so we can remain up to date on the plan language as it progresses through the approval process. You may already know that several members of the Chamber's Economic Development Committee also participate as appointees to the Glenwood Citizen's Advisory Committee, so we are well aware of the development of this plan district document and the many hours of hard work that went into its creation. While we share the same vision for the special opportunities,that can be created in this unique place, we also believe that the development plan and requirements balance flexibility with the need for written standards, while still simultaneously containing standards that communicate our aspirations for the area. In this economy, in this community, where there does not appear to be a waiting list of developers anxious to break ground in the next year, we feel that the plan should present the goals and aspirations of the community, and then allow the property owners and developers to interpret how to meet those guidelines from a variety of approaches, and without a time consuming variance process. We also feel that it is critical to widespread acceptance of the Glenwood Plan that it be vetted by one or more regional and local development firms, who regularly work on these types of mixed use developments, to assure that elements of the plan do not become fatal flaws to enticing a developer to invest in this part of our community. We think the two primary questions that should be asked are these: 1. Is the vision of a sustainable, mixed use, transit oriented development along the Willamette River in the Glenwood Area realistic given the economic realities of today's world and market conditions in the foreseeable future? 2. Do the policies and implementing strategies in the plan and the standards of the ordinance - taken individually or as a whole - impose costly or burdensome impositions that would prevent or discourage them from pursuing a development in Glenwood that would support this vision? Specifically, which if any policy(iesJ, strategy(ies) and/or standard(s) are pr6ject killers? Members of the Chamber Economic Development coJmittee would be glad to help the city locate regional and local developers who could provide a unique view of the documents in their current form. Please consider these suggestions and the attached list of sample questions As a sign of our support for the work being done to guide the , development of the Glenwood Riverfront area. We look forward to continuing the dialogue as the plan develops, is approved and finally can be implemented. I hA ,~ SinCereIY,Cv~ ~ ~ ~ Cosette Reese . Bill Seider Chair Economic Development Committee Chamber Rep to Glenwood Citizens Advisory Committee www.springfield-charnber.org 3{ I . 10\ South A Stree" PO Box 155 . Springfield, OR 97477 D t R 'ved' q?' II Phone: 541.746.1651 . Fax; 541.726.4727. e-mail: general@springfield-chambew~ e ecel. I t'lanner: MEM + CHAMBER of COMMERCE August 29, 2011 Subject: Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce Review of Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan District Possible specific auestions we think the developers mav be asked include: 1. How do they feel about the proposed conceptual street grid and specifically the "riverfront street"? What limitations would they accept for being allowed to build right along the setback edge with view opportunities and enhanced riverfront access? 2. How do they feel about the "slicing" of the riverfront into different sub-areas with the proposed different uses allowed? In their experience, does this approach promote or inhibit real mixed use development? What are they seeing in other communities and what approach works best to promote "vitality" within a mixed use district? Are these districts too restrictive on the types of uses allowed or not restrictive enough? 3. How does the existing checkerboard of large and small property ownership in the riverfront area promote or interfere with complying with the'proposed development code and building in this area? 4. Is the approach to use "Maximum Parking Allowances" a good idea, and are the limits suggested realistic to promote the type of development envisioned in this area? What have they seen work the best for short and long term parking in the mixed use developments they have worked on? Just how important is parking in a "transit oriented" development with high density residential and what would be their suggestions on how best to manage it? How important is structured parking and will developers be willing to build these themselves or insist on the city stepping up to provide this service? S. Is it a mistake not to allow "hotel and hospitality uses" within the mixed use residential district as is proposed under the draft document? In their specific experience, have they seen such mixed uses next to each other cause problems or do they help "energize" a'development? 6. In the Refinement Plan, Figure 6 describes a "possible example of a restoration plan for riparian setback planting and water quality zone". How likely would a developer be to include this extensive amount of riverfront bank mitigation as a part of the cost of their projects? 7. Does a residential development density threshold of SO units per acre cause any concerns about being able to develop in this area of the community within the next five to ten years? 8. How useful/cumbersome are the minor and major modification procedures outlined in Section 3.4-230 on pages 5-7? 9. How significant is the prohibition of drive through facilities, including banks and restaurants, found in Section 3.4-25S on page 17? 10. How limiting do they consider the Light Manufacturing QPelational Performance Standards found in Subsection M on pages 47- 49? I 11. How limiting are the Building Design Standards stated in Section 3.4-275 on pages 51-61? 12. Should the current lack of properly sized infrastructure to ,lrve this Glenwood Riverfront Area, and the presence of existing , natural and man-made constraints affecting certain properties in Glenwood, like the railroad system south of Franklin Bouievard, be considered when establishing prescriptive development standaids in these areas? Should these affected areas be afforded more flexibility to address these known constraints? I 13. After reading the planning documents, would they be inclined to invest in the Glenwood Riverfront? What could be done to , entice that development here? : www.springfield-chamber.org lOl South A Street. PO Box 155. Springfield, OR 97477 Ql!te Received: Phone: 541.746.1651. Fax: 541.726.4727. e-mail: general@SPriogfield-'P\'/fi\W3r: MEM q\1l \\