The Cannery Project at the Hearings Officer Tonight

The Cannery redevelopment for the former Truitt Bros. site is at the Hearings Officer tonight, Wednesday the 25th. The project generally looks like a good addition to Salem, but it also still seems uncertain and complicated.

Previously:

• "Questions on the Cannery Proposal" (2023)
• A little, and links to more, on an historical homage, "A Mansard Roof for the Cannery Project"
• On the disposition of surface parking, "Latest Version of Cannery Project Retreats from Walkability, but may offer More Housing"
• And on Front Street, "Questions on Front Street"

The project is for 382 homes in three new apartment buildings and for 422 off-street parking stalls, 291 of them in a basement garages under each building.  The City eliminated minimum parking requirements last year, but we still have maximum limits, 930 stalls in this case. So 422 is very much a middle quantity of parking.

Newer renderings: 1914 building, food hall,
mansard roofs, interior driveway, river path
(updated project website)

There's also some adaptive reuse for buildings along the river, conceptually assigned to food and wine businesses. Riverside dining, perhaps!

We've already discussed the Mansard roof on the main buildings along Front, and in the packet are revised drawings for a tasting room on the interior of the lots, and food hall and market along the river. 

The oldest building is retained with few modifications, and currently the concept is for a tasting room and perhaps even a small winery or brewery. (There may not be enough room to deliver grapes and such at the site, and also the wine industry is currently experiencing a contraction with an oversupply of grapes and wine inventory, so this is very much a detail not to attach to.)

Adaptive Reuse: Tasting room

For the food hall and market concepts, these would use structural elements from older existing buildings but not maintain much else of the buildings themselves.

Adaptive Reuse: Food Hall

Adaptive Reuse: Market building

Here's the current site context.

Existing conditions with new uses labeled

Included in the proposal are also requests to

• Raise building height from 70 to 74 feet
• Reduce driveway spacing to less than minimum of 370 feet
• Eliminate 5-foot landscape setbacks on parking areas
• Eliminate designated carpool/vanpool stalls (5% required)

Staff find the applicant's requests reasonable and minor, and suggest approval on them.

In public comment, the neighborhood association submitted a site plan with comments added in red.

Grant NA comments in red

The Staff Report summary alludes to ways the site and immediate area is constrained.

In summary, the neighborhood association expresses excitement about the prospect of The Cannery Development, their appreciation of the time and effort it takes to make such a significant investment in their neighborhood, and their desire to be engaged in continued communication with the development team to ensure the project is successful for everyone. The neighborhood association also identified some areas of concern that are of particular interest to them where they feel the proposed design could be enhanced including providing adequate public access to the Willamette River Greenway Path; adequate landscaping between pedestrian paths and parking; lack of tree cover in parking areas; pedestrian amenities along Front Street; street trees along Front Street; and accessible parking dimensions and Fire Department assess. The neighborhood association also indicates they would like to see a stronger pedestrian connection from the neighborhood to the greenway and the Willamette River; additional pedestrian connections across Front Street south of Market Street; and their preference for utilization of durable and long-lasting materials.

Staff Response: The proposed development is located within the MU-R (Mixed-Use Riverfront) zone and is therefore subject to the pedestrian-oriented design standards of the zone included under RC 536.015(g). In regard to additional points of pedestrian access to the site across Front Street south of Market Street. Due to the constrained right-of-way of that portion of Front Street and a lack a sidewalks on the east side of the street, it’s currently no possible to have a pedestrian across that section of the section of the street.

With the river and water table, the Willamette Greenway, the railroad, and some historic preservation, there are lots of constraints. Things may very well change and it does not seem wise to attach too strongly, positively or negatively, to any detail. The general tone of the neighborhood comment seems apt: General praise and excitement, but questions on some detail.

In fact, there's quite a bit that is deferred and to be determined. It seems like a much higher amount that usual. These are particular areas where things seem likely to change.

For example, there's a debate with PGE left unresolved.

Portland General Electric reviewed the proposal and provided comments indicting that regarding the request to eliminate the required public utility easement (PUE), PGE encourages rejecting this request. Elimination of the PUE will not allow enough space for the installation of our equipment to serve the project. Given the size (power capacity requirement) of the project, PGE will need to install multiple 4-inch and 6-inch conduits as well multiple large concrete splice/switch vaults in the sidewalk/pedestrian spaces and the proposed parallel parking areas. The vaults will each have rough dimensions of 10’ wide by 13’ long by 9’ tall. However, the current curb/sidewalk/parallel parking layout does not allow space for the installation of this equipment while maintaining the City-required 5’ separation from parallel water mains.

Staff Response: The purpose of the MU-R zone is to promote a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented district that takes advantage of its proximity to the Willamette River. The zone encourages a mix of uses in multi-story buildings and promotes pedestrian access to the Willamette River. It was developed as part of a four-year Comprehensive Plan update project called Our Salem. The zone requires a zero-foot front setback but allows up to 10-feet with pedestrian amenities in order to encourage a walkable, mixed-use environment. The area has also been identified as a Climate Friendly Area in accordance with the State of Oregon requirements for Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules. Providing standard PUEs along the frontage could result in the development not meeting the setback and design standards. The applicant understands that they need to work with PGE and City staff to ensure that the power needs of the development are met.

The question of setbacks and vaults has a real impact on sidewalk space and building disposition on the lot. Is it risky to leave this detail unresolved? What if negotiations with PGE go sideways? 

New construction downtown has managed without new big vaults in the sidewalks, but perhaps the conditions on Front Street are different enough to cause problems.

In and of itself the negotiation with PGE might not be a crux, but this kind of uncertainty is echoed in other places. We've already mentioned the detail in the Front Street plans. Normally a half-street improvement on the side of the development would be standard, but the Staff Report says that won't work.

Functionally, a half-street improvement cannot be constructed in a manner that would provide for safe and efficient circulation for all users of Front Street NE; nor could it be feasibly constructed as a half street improvement. As a result, a full street improvement is required in order to complete the railroad safety improvements along the frontage. The subject property has frontage along Front Street NE from the Mill Creek Bridge to Shipping Street NE; however, the rail line extends from the intersection of Front Street Bypass to South Street NE. In order to ensure the functionality of the corridor is maintained and to adequately mitigate the traffic generated by the proposed development, the required improvements are required to extend north of the subject property to South Street.

So how do the full-street plans in the packet mesh with the $2.7 million Front Street Study? This does not seem like optimal sequencing either.

Crucially, the project still needs approval from ODOT Rail and the railroads themselves, and over they years they've proved rather balky. That's another veto point and moment for changes.

All in all there's a pattern of significant key details yet to be worked out, and perhaps instances of putting the cart before the horse.

Other observations

The discussion of "safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access" is pro-forma and bad. Under "existing conditions" the Staff Report says, "Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to the property is provided by the existing public street network which serves the subject property and the surrounding area." This is really trades on the word "access." The existing public street network right there does not serve people on foot and on bike very well, and access is very tricky. Access works only for the intrepid or desperate.

This is not anything particular about this project but is a structural flaw with our approvals framework, which cares mainly about a theoretical appearance of "safe and convenient" access and not so much about any on-the-ground reality that people on foot and on bike would agree with.

This is not very accurate

The later discussion of the relevant code trades too much on future hope and not on any detailed plans. It's just hand-waving criticism away. Until we see the Front Street study plans, we have no idea about "safe and convenient" walking and biking. The street drawings include several instances of dead end bike lane and hazardous bike lane continuation across rail. They are also missing sidewalk sections. "Safe and convenient" here is largely fiction.

The Staff Report does concede a lower speed limit on Front Street is desirable. Legal, posted speed is another way the public street network does not serve people on foot and on bike right there. Additionally, people speed above the posted limit and use Front Street to bypass the Commercial/Liberty Couplet north of downtown. In a recent post on reddit, people even joked about this.

35mph on Front Street is too fast

On aesthetics, the Willamette River Greenway calls for a more limited color palette dominated by green and brown. Some of the coloring used to establish demise lines might need to be revised.

Some of the coloring may need adjustment

The river path width is ten feet on a 15-foot easement. This feels narrow. Recent plans for paths on McGilchrist and Salem Heights have been ten feet wide. Marine Drive has plans for a path twelve feet wide. The river path once completed should have more traffic than McGilchrist and Salem Heights, and hopefully more than Marine Drive also, more people on foot, on pedal bikes, and with electrified wheels, multiple types of users. But again, the site is constrained.

Over and over in response to a potential line of criticism, "the site is constrained" rises as an answer.

So it will be interesting to read the Hearings Officers decision, what if any appeal is made, and how the Front Street drawings mesh with the $2.7 million planning study's findings. And several other of the TBD details.

Hopefully the project will move forward and incremental improvements can be made as the project continues along to maturity.