Nearing the end of the year, there are a few Notices for administrative approvals sneaking in at the last minute. Two of them are for similarly sized apartment developments, one for 22 homes nearly at the intersection of a minor arterial and a parkway, another for 27 homes at the intersection of a major arterial and a parkway. But they show very different approaches. Nevertheless, both have parking lots even thought the City doesn't require any now. And both simply require an administrative approval rather than any full Public Hearing before the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission.
The more interesting one is on Broadway right by the Parkway.
 |
| Modern urbanism |
 |
| Project site on Broadway and Tryon Ave |
 |
| 19 parking stalls |
It would replace a somewhat shabby single-story commercial building and lot that had been used for car sales.
It will have four stories, ground floor commercial space, 19 parking stalls, and a mix of 22 studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments.All things considered it looks pretty neat.
And it is exactly the kind of project our parking requirement had halted. It is a project liberated by our new parking standards!
 |
| Four stories and 50 parking stalls (2018) |
You may recall a very similar concept discussed just a few years ago in the State Street Corridor Study process.
It was for 24 homes, ground floor commercial space, and it mocked a parking lot 150% larger, 50 stalls instead of 19.
 |
| Doesn't pencil out |
It didn't even meet code. 50 stalls was still 17 short.
This new project on Broadway would have required around 200% more parking under the old standards. That would not all fit on this lot. It wouldn't get very far at all in conversation, let alone reach a formal proposal at the City.
These new possibilities are great to see.
 |
| 27 apartments on Center & Cordon Road |
On the opposite side of town, at Center Street and Cordon Road, 27 apartments in a typical three-story walkup configuration with three buildings are proposed. It's more cookie-cutterish.
It has no ground floor commercial space, and the primary entries are turned around to face the parking lot rather than Cordon or Center. Where Broadway leads directly to Fred Meyer and people will certainly walk along it, foot traffic on Center or Cordon here is much less likely, and turning around to face the lot is reasonable on the surface.
Still, at what point will a mixed-use project or a neighborhood-scaled commercial hub make sense on these new developments along Cordon?
You may recall the commercial hub at the mushroom plant development got cancelled and replaced with a standard apartment complex. The developers did not think there was demand yet for a business hub.
It will be very interesting to see the first mover on that.
In the meantime, it is exciting to see projects like the one on Broadway now proposed. The City will want, however, to monitor the impact on property values and potential displacement. Adding supply should help mitigate potential for rising rents, but this is a more vulnerable part of town.
2 comments:
Over on FB, a knowledgeable neighborhood advocate writes in criticism. They declined to make it here unfortunately, and after this quote, we'll respond briefly.
"One of the disadvantages the Breakfast of Bike Blogger has is they lack local knowledge. Just looking at a developer’s drawings is not enough for real understanding of a proposal.
Each of the projects mentioned are located within city recognized Neighborhood Associations. With their individual knowledge they will evaluate the project in context of the neighborhood and the impact on the community.
As to the apartments being proposed on Center and Cordon Road that project is in East Lancaster Neighborhood Association of which I am the co-chair and responsible for land use. ELNA will be opposing this project on several counts. Not that it is a traditional 3-story walk up, or that it is oriented towards the parking lot, or even because it has no commercial hub. We will object primarily because it proposes to put a structure in a wetland. A wetland that was flooded with 3 feet of water during the recent rain. The developer proposes to fill in the wetlands and then put a significant 3-story building on the fill. Their engineers think that they can change the natural landscape and make it sink proof and waterproof. Tell that to the school district who put McKay HS on a wetland only to have it sink several inches and cause major structural issues.
Not only is filling in a wetlands ignorant, but it is unnecessary. This property was approved for an apartment complex over a decade ago with even more units. That plan had all the same amenities but didn’t touch the wetlands. It actually called for educational signage It used the wetland as an esthetic buffer to the noise of Cordon Road traffic.
On the question of the East Park subdivision (old mushroom plant property) the Blogger disparages the actual business analysis that the developer did. Professional assessment (never done by the City during rezoning) showed that the only business that could be viable in that location was a gas station with a possible convenience store. Not neighborhood friendly.
People assume all the time that businesses can survive just about anywhere. Not true. A business must have a certain amount of sales each day to survive. That is why HUBs are not going to spring up just anywhere someone arbitrarily wants to put them. They develop more organically based on a multitude of factors. Since Salem’s current codes allow for home businesses we actual have businesses all throughout our existing neighborhoods. Most are low-profile, but some do become community based. The idea that they will provide just walk up services is ludicrous. Even successful small businesses like restaurants have other services like catering to help them survive. A chain that requires a franchise like Subway or Papa Murphy’s requires about 150 sales per day. Even a 1,000 unit subdivision/apartment complex like East Park can’t assure that kind of patronage ever day. So the logical thing is to just build more housing.
Lastly, Cordon Road is not meant to be a commercial corridor like Lancaster. In fact Keubler was never supposed to be one either. They were supposed to be beltlines around the City so that commuters could go around the commercial area. As part of that design, Marion County has kept faith with the plan. They do not allow driveways off Cordon Road.
On the Center Street property access is off Center Street through an existing mobile home subdivision. Putting commercial space in the complex would be ludicrous."
The point about the wetland and flooding is important! That's a reasonable criticism of the project, and it is odd that you suggest that someone who doesn't know that should be barred from commenting on a project.
About the commercial hub, you employ a strawman, criticising the post for something it doesn't claim. What is not clear about this: "at what point will a mixed-use project or a neighborhood-scaled commercial hub make sense on these new developments along Cordon?" and "The developers [of the mushroom project] did not think there was demand yet for a business hub." Isn't that an acknowledgement of the business analysis?
As we've said here over-and-over about downtown, people and homes should be the priority and business will follow to service that customer base. Where is there disparagement here of the business analysis that led to cancelling the business hub? You are making that up! It says clearly that the hub doesn't yet make sense to developers.
But it is significant to note that these new developments on Cordon are totally car-dependent, and at some point they will need to be more walkable.
Post a Comment