You might remember an early concept from the annexation back in 2010.
In 2016 water was an issue, and a commenter said
The issue that is concerning neighbors is actually the drainage from this property. Since it was used for agriculture for decades we know that insecticides and other chemicals were used. That contamination is likely still in the area and a creek runs through this property. Neighbors worry that it might be leaching into the creek. They also worry that digging on the property could also disturb the contamination and it will also go into the creek.And earlier this year, from the same commenter, who has been following the project:
There was a proposal to build a large Planned Unit Development of over 800 row houses on more than 100 acres at the old Pictsweet property. Well, the plans have changed dramatically. Now the plan is not to build townhouses on skinny lots, but a more traditional single family houses on 3400 to 4500 square foot lots. Total number is down to 659 houses with a density of about 8 units per acre.So after a few iterations of revision and adjustment, there is a firmer concept at the Planning Commission:
An application for a 695-unit Planned Unit Development and Subdivision to be completed in six phases, a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change from CR (Retail Commercial) to RM-II (Multi-Family Residential) for approximately 2.11 acres, and from IP (Industrial Park) to RS (Single Family Residential) for approximately 3.25 acres, and a Class 2 Adjustment to reduce the amount of required off-street parking spaces for the 36-unit multi-family portion of the PUD from 77 spaces (2.14 per unit) to 64 spaces (1.77 spaces per unit).
So it's not obvious that higher density forms were well-suited here.
But more people might also have created the demand for more frequent bus service.
The street grid looks ok. Two main north-south streets will create connections, and one of them can be striped with a bike lane. The Staff Report will probably have more detail on this.
|Bike lanes proposed for Auburn and for a new north-south street|
A path also proposed for the Geer Line alignment
|South half with Cougar and Greencrest Connecting|
Note park and commercial cluster on the southeast corner
|North half with Greencrest connecting, but Cougar deadends|
Note stormwater detention basin on northeast corner
The Planning Commisson meets on Tuesday, September 17th.
Update, September 14th
The Staff Report is out, and the most notable thing about it is just the sheer quantity of conditions that staff propose the Commission adopt as part of the recommended approval.
|56 proposed conditions for approval!|
Contamination might very well be an issue, for example. Alas, the Staff Report does not directly address this and instead appeals to a procedural excluse: We have a certificate in hand from DEQ that says "no problem." (I just want to read a Staff Report that says, "While we have approval from this agency, questions remain and we recommend further investigation.")
|Contamination is dismissed by a procedural move|
On transportation things, you'll notice that proposed condition number 55, which calls for a segment of multi-use path along Cordon Road. That'll likely be an orphaned segment for a while, however, disconnected from any other segments.
Significantly, that condition also calls for east-west sidewalk connections between Panther Street and the MUP at 600 feet intervals. There's not a lot of external connectivity on the east and west boundaries of the project. Connections from the east and west are mainly along busy roads, Auburn and State Streets.
|The Geer Line right-of-way is a mess|
This is just one of the City's great missed opportunities.
A more minor missed opportunity might be Cherriots', as they declined to offer comment on the project.
|Cherriots declined to comment|
The Staff Report confirms that Greencrest is the main street through the development.
|Greencrest is the collector|
The applicant’s proposal shows the extension of (future) Greencrest Street NE, designated a Collector B in the Salem TSP, intersecting with State Street in an alignment that does not conform with the existing Salem TSP. The proposed intersection aligns with Oakmont Court SE, more than 600 feet east of the designed transportation system, therefore a TSP Amendment is required. As of this writing, the applicant has applied for a TSP Amendment, however approval has not yet been obtained. Prior to commencement of work in Phase 1, the applicant shall obtain City Council approval for an amendment to the Salem TSP to modify the alignment of (future) Greencrest Street NE.The proposed alignment of Cougar Street was more in line with the TSP's expectation for a Collector Street. As proposed, Cougar also would have an offset at the intersection with State Street, and the City wants it in line with the street on the south side of State.