Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C - Chase Garden NodeEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Chase Gardens Mixed Use Center Meeting Date: April 11, 2005 Agenda Item Number: C Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session was scheduled by the City Council in response to a Harlow Neighbors' letter dated December 14, 2004. BACKGROUND Ingrained in the City's Growth Management Study policies, TransPlan, and Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, which requires cities to reduce the amount of automobile travel, is the desire to create pedestrian and transit-oriented "nodes" or "Mixed Use Centers." TransPlan identified the higher density Chase Gardens area as one of 38 potential nodal development areas. In 1999, the City secured a state Transportation Growth Manangement grant to prepare a nodal development plan for Chase Gardens, located at the northern intersection of Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard and Garden Way. An opportunity to create a pedestrian and transit-oriented neighborhood center was implemented through a Metro Plan diagram amendment, Willakenzie Area Plan amendment, and adoption of a specially created zone district (S-CN). Major changes from previous plans included shifting the commercial area towards MLK Boulevard, adding commercial design standards and mixed use opportunities, and a modified Garden Way, which is now designed to function as the main pedestrian-friendly street and house the primary transit stops. Garden Way was recently constructed to this preferred design. During the study, the city enjoyed active participation by the owners of the biggest vacant parcel (Simpson Housing), which includes the site of the proposed 9+ acre commercial center, a prospective commercial center developer (Gramor Development), local land use consultants (Satre Associates), a market expert (Hobson Ferrarini Associates), Harlow Neighbors, and area residents. The neighborhood supported a new commercial center and the market analysis suggested that the retail market was strong for a full-sized grocery store and ancillary retail in this location. The prospective developer drafted a conceptual plan that reflected a single-story 150,000 square foot center, including a 50,000 square foot (maximum) grocery. Based on recommendations from the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted the following three zoning standards to encourage more intensive activities and pedestrian-orientation along Garden Way: L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050411\S05041 lC.doc 1. Each business facing Garden Way must provide an individual customer door facing the street; 2. The buildings along Garden way must have at least two functional floors; and 3. Drive-though facilities are not permitted. The range of permitted uses is similar to the City's General Commercial (C-2) Zone, except that some automobile dependent businesses are not allowed, much like the/ND Nodal Overlay zone and Broadway's "great street" standards. Otherwise, there was quite a bit of flexibility allowed in the new zone. To encourage nodal investment, no site review or conditional use permit is required if development adheres to the basic use and design standards contained in the new S-CN zone. Claiming that the three special standards listed above were not economically feasible at this location, Gramor stopped pursuing the site after several months of analysis. The property owner, Simpson Housing, claimed after one year that it could not sell the commercial property with the first two standards listed above, but would not submit its concerns in writing to the council. Simpson Housing has sold its property to two entities, Public Private Partnerships (P3), a housing provider, and W&G Properties, who propose to build a medical/orthopedic surgery center on the commercially zoned portion of the property. Public Private Partnerships (housing) has applied for a building permit for an apartment complex on its residentially zoned property. W&G has not yet submitted a building application, but there was a 'limited consultation' on November 30, 2004. The company expressed a desire to build 150,000 square feet of medical offices, probably built as two buildings in two phases. The medical use is currently permitted subject to design standards. Professional offices (including medical) were not limited in the Chase Gardens commercial area to encourage use of upper floors above retail. There is also commercial land located east of Garden Way where professional offices would not interfere with the desired retail center, so no size restrictions were contemplated on office uses. At the consultation, staff encouraged the prospective developers to bring retail and other professional services to the site, including a grocery, to better satisfy the neighborhood needs and to create a 'special place' along Garden Way. The applicants expressed interest in providing additional services that would be good for their building occupants, customers, and the broader neighborhood, and noted that the addition of retail to their plan may require adjustments from other criteria, such as height limits. Staff was positive in trying to offer win-win situations. W&G have since reported to staff that it has pursued retail businesses, including grocers, without satisfactory result. A letter from W&G is attached. In separate letters, Harlow Neighbors request that a moratorium be considered, that a zone district amendment be initiated by the City to remove the three standards that were problematic for the retail developer, and they offer several other alternatives that may facilitate retail development. The letters are attached. Even if the zoning standards are changed, or a moratorium initiated, there is a high probability that the medical offices would not be stopped unless the property owner agreed. Their development rights under current zoning can be easily vested, and Measure 37 may provide obstacles to new use restrictions. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050411\S05041 lC.doc If initiated by the City Council, the simple change to the S-CN zone text requested by Harlow Neighbors (i.e., affecting the number of functional floors, door orientation, and allowing drive-through facilities) would not significantly impact planning staff resources to implement. RELATED CITY POLICIES Multiple City policies clearly support implementation of mixed use, pedestrian and transit-oriented development (e.g., TransPlan, Growth Management Study, and Planning Division work program). Growth Management Study Policy 10: Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. Discuss, take no action. 2. Initiate the S-CN zone changes requested by Harlow Neighbors. 3. Direct staff to prepare a work plan and budget request for more substantial amendments to the S-CN zone and/or Willakenzie Area Plan (this option would impact staff resources). 4. Direct the Planning Director to explore incentives to encourage a grocery on this site. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager has no recommendation on this item. SUGGESTED MOTION None. ATTACHMENTS A. Land Use Diagram of Chase Node from Willakenzie Area Plan B. E-mail from J. Radabaugh, Chase Gardens Node Committee, dated March 28, 2005 C. Letter from Harlow Neighbors dated March 31, 2005, inc. "Considerations" and chronology D. Letter from TBG Architects dated April 1, 2005, including the following enclosures: a. Letter from Kurt Yeiter dated August 16, 2004 b. Limited Consultation notes by Kristen Taylor, December 8, 2004 c. Letter from Harlow Neighbors dated November 4, 2004 E. Letter from Prichard, Evans, & Elder dated April 1, 2005 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Department Telephone: 682-8379 Staff E-Mail: Kurt. M.Yeiter~ci. eugene, or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050411\S05041 lC.doc ATTACHMENT A Chase Gardens Subarea Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use Diagram Amendments 1-105 Site of medical center --'> Eugene Ci~ Li:mits Chase Node Parks & Open Space Low Densi~ Residential Commercia~ ~,~ High Density Residential A Mixed use SUbarea ATTACHMENT B YEITER Kurt M From: Jack Radabaugh [jradabaugh@comcast.net] S nt: Monday, March 28, 2005 12:48 PM To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us Cc: kurt.m.yeiter@ci.eugene.or, us Subject: Fw: Letter to City Council ..... Original Message ..... From: Jack Radabaugh To: Charles Biggs; Terry Wh_it~e; Terry Froemming; Marian Spath; Louise Wade Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:01 PM Subject: Letter to City Council To: The Mayor and City Council From: Jack Radabaugh, Chairman, Chase Gardens Node Committee Subject: Chase Gardens Nodal Development At its March 16, 2005 public meeting, the Harlow Neighbors Neighborhood Association voted to support continued development of retail services for the Chase Gardens area. Specifically, the neighbors desire, at minimum, creation of a grocery store. A formal resolution rejecting an exclusively medical services facility was passed with only one negative vote. After more than ten years of work, Harlow Neighbors urges the City Council to act in a manner which will result in the ongoing greatest good for the largest number of people residing in this underserved high density area. Retail services will provide relief, not only to student renters, but also to persons who will live in the 240 Iow inome units planned for the future. The last thing this congested area needs is a regional medical center. The $60,000 major planning effort contracted for the the City for area development called for an upscale retail urban village. Development of any regional facility was rejected by both the study plan and the neighborhood. The Satre Assocoates plan suggested several configurations of retail layout, all of which would result in improvement of vehicle miles travelled in the area. A system of internal sidewalks along with a seventy-five percent reduction in driving distances would result in a reduction of VMT for all the inhabitants of the area. It would also add retail advantages for the people living south of Martin Luther King Boulevard. A regional medical center which devotes most of the eight acres to parking lot purposes guarantees a future traffic mess which the improved Garden Way will never be able to mitigate. At this point the City Council still has an opportunity to complete its first successful node in Eugene. The extremely high density of the area makes this possible. Creation of an urban village is, in itself, desirable. The urban village proposal meets all of the best asperations of the Willakenzie Plan, the Metro Plan and Trans Plan. A need still exists to make the money spent on the area study worthwhile. Finally, the City Council and staff are urged to accept the advice of the neighborhood in urging broad and general retail services for Chase Gardens. 4/4/2005 ATTACHMENT C Harlow Neighbors Association Terry Froemming (HNA-Chair) 2886 Bailey Lane Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene City Council City of Eugene Planning Dept 777 Pearl Street Eugene Oregon March 31, 2005 Re: Chase Garden Node Work Session - April 11, 2005 Eugene City Planning Department has determined City code applicable to the commercial area of the Chase Garden Node does not require significant retail commercial businesses. It seems a minor, unintentional, deficiency in current code language is risking the loss of the very spirit and purpose of the Chase Garden Node. The Chase Node, originally slated to become one of Eugene's first successfully completed "commercial nodes", the end result of over twenty years of efforts by both the City and residents, is about to be lost to a proposed development that will be little more than a large regional medical complex. This proposal does not, will not, encourage alternative forms of transportation nor will it in any way create a resident-friendly neighborhood center compatible with surrounding residential uses. W&G Properties, has discovered the deficiency in City code and chosen to disregard, in total, the "Purpose and Spirit" of nodal design and proposed a 150,000 square foot "Medical Complex". While this proposal has been determined a permitted use, by our Planning Department, it is NOT consistent with the purpose of a "commercial node." At the HNA March general meeting a lengthy discussion was conducted regarding our "node", in the presence of three W&G Properties principals, wherein Harlow Neighbors voted positions supporting a grocery store and opposing the 150,000 square foot medical complex. HNA believes a grocery store necessary to save any semblance of a node. All the efforts, studies, citizen involvement, MetroPlan finding of fact, as well as the Willakenzie Refinement Plan have long recognized a grocery store as a "key element" to our nodal design. Absent of a grocery store the Chase Garden Commercial Node fails to meet most, if not all, of the intended goals of a neighborhood centered commercial Node. Harlow Neighbors have had conversations with a W&P Properties representative expressing our desire for a grocery store, their position is that a medium sized store, one offering fresh meat and produce, is not "economically feasible" even though a previous developer's plan included a 50,000 sq. ft. store. We suggest even if profitability is a question, and we do not necessarily agree, there is no requirement that the City is beholding to a developer for economic feasibility. We need to reserve this and other nodes, until such a time as purposeful development becomes economically feasible. Harlow Neighbors Association is asking the City council to initiate amending language to the Chase Garden zone code. Harlow neighbors encourages the Council to declare an immediate moratorium on any and all proposals applicable to the commercially zoned areas, within the Chase Garden Node, until such a time as a code amendment can be adopted. Attached is a list, Exhibit A, outlining several possibilities for helping correct the current code deficiency. Harlow Neighbors Association thanks you for considering our concerns. We remain steadfast in our hopes for a successful commercial node at the Chase Garden area as well as other future nodes for our City as they hold great promise for increasing the livability of all our city's residents. Respectfully, Terry Froemming Harlow Neighbors Association - Chair Exhibit A: Considerations - Chase Garden Special Area Zone A. Declaration of Moratorium applicable to the "commercially zoned" area within the node: (An immediate action is needed to prevent development outside the intended purpose of the commercial node.) B. Amend Special Area zone language of City code 9.3116 (6) that allows for unlimited building size for office and other non-retail businesses. (This is the specific language that is being used to circumvent the "intent and purpose" of the Chase Garden node.) · Require for a 40,000 sq ft grocery store carrying fresh produce and meat. (While this is the primary objective of the Harlow Neighbors, it may be difficult to specifically accommodate into code.) · Place a 40-percent minimum requirement for non-medical retail development. (40% x 150,000 =60,000 sq. ft.) (This would not insure a grocery store however it may help lend itself to act as an incentive.) · 60-percent maximum development for office use. (60% x 150,000=90,000 sq. ft.) · Create task force consisting of Developer, City Staff and Neighborhood Organization (Objective to act as a first step in resolving differences.) · Rezone more commercial area. (East side of Garden Way) (Could be purchased for additional medical office on property other than the current primary 8.6 acre commercial piece.) · Facilitate parking structure to free up future retail space. (long-shot for freeing up future land to be used for retail commercial) · City act as agent in purchasing property controlling future use. (Property could be used as incentives for achieving nodal purpose.) · SDC's as incentives. · Set a limit on parking. (May discourage large regional drive-to facilities.) CHASE GARDENS NODE CHRONOLOGY Chase Gardens closed in 1992. That same year city planners in conjunction with the Harlow Neighbors Association developed the Willakenzie Area Plan. It called for high density residential development where the gardens used to be and a Commercial Node in the southeast comer at the intersection of South Garden Way and Centennial Boulevard. The purpose of the commercial node was to "reduce reliance on the single-occupant vehicle by providing facilities and services that promote alternative modes of travel." (p.7) By 2000, there was fairly dense development of private sector apartments and housing for University of Oregon students--all of it north of Centennial Boulevard on land formerly owned by Chase Gardens. South of the Boulevard (and south of the acreage reserved for the commercial node), Quail Run was under construction. It would add over one hundred houses ranged around courtyards and built close by I-5. Moreover, financing had been secured for improvement of South Garden Way, making it a major connector between Centennial and Harlow Road. During 2000-2001, the City Planning Department met a total of seven times with Harlow Neighbors Association to put the finishing touches on a plan for the Chase Gardens commercial node. A grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development enabled Satre & Associates to draft this plan, one which the city government, Harlow Neighbors Association, and the Register-Guard applauded. The Chase Garden Nodal Development Plan (2001) was called a "refinement" of the 1992 plan. The node was "intended to provide land for goods and service needs of the residents...such as a grocery store, restaurants, coffee shops." (pp. 7, 17-18). According to our count (carried out by Marian Spath of the Harlow Neighbors Association), there are approximately 3500 people now living north of MLK, Jr. Boulevard on the site of the former Chase Gardens. They are living in the Chase Village Apartments (1,200), Parkgrove Apartments (600), Duck Village (600), McKenna Estates (140), and University Commons (700). In addition there is an assisted living complex. Another large apartment development--- 240 units, some with three-bedrooms, for low-income families--- is scheduled for construction this year. South of the Boulevard there are approximately 250 people in Quail Run, and Chevy Chase has only a handful of vacant lots. All of these people travel by car to the grocery stores on Coburg Road-or take two different buses to make the journey. Most would prefer to walk or bike to a full-service grocery store in a neighborhood commercial node. City officials have twice endorsed the Chase Gardens node plan and emphasized that it would reduce vehicle miles traveled. Should the bulk of the land be given to a medical complex which needs 600 parking spaces, it would be a travesty of the planning goal to reduce vehicle miles traveled. And, in our opinion, it would constitute a serious breach of faith between city government and the neighborhood associations it sponsors. Prepared by Louise Wade for the Chase Gardens Node Committee of the Harlow Neighbors Association. March 28, 2005. ATTACHMENT D ARCHITECTS & Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council P/ANNERS/INC 777 Pearl Street, Room 105 132 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 Suite 200 Eugene, Oregon 97401 541-687-1010 RE: Chase Gardens Development (200509/1.3) 541-68g0625 Fax Work Session Testimony Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council: On behalf of W&G Properties, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to express W&G Properties' interest in maintaining the existing permitted use and special use limitation sections in the current Eugene Code under the S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone (EC 9.3115, EC Table 9.3115 and EC 9.3116). W&G Properties is a local development firm that has recently purchased 8.5 acres of commercial property within the Chase Node Special Area Zone from the prior owner, Simpson Housing. With the understanding that a medical clinic office use is an outright permitted use in the S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone, W&G Properties has already significantly invested in the purchase and design development of the property with the intention of developing the property primarily with medical clinic office use. W&G has a significant stake in the discussion that will be held during the April 11, 2005 work session. Therefore, we appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony for your review. SUMMARY The following bulleted items summarize the main points described in the accompanying detailed written testimony. · Kurt Yeiter confirmed in a letter to W&G Properties that "[t]he S-CN zone that applies to [their] property allows Clinics, Medical Health Treatment Facilities, and Administrative and Professional Office uses. There is no requirement that retail accompany these uses." · Per the Eugene Code under the Chase Node Special Area Zone, non-retail uses, like a medical clinic use, are an outright permitted use and can occupy more than 50,000 square feet of building area. · In a Limited Consultation Conference, City Staff did not see any insurmountable John E. Lawless, AIA barriers that would prevent W&G Properties from developing the proposed Principal James F. Alberson III, AIA Principal Darrell L. Smith, NCARB, FAIA Principal Joe Sando Associate Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council April 1, 2005 Page 2 of 8 conceptual plan which proposed two 3-story medical clinic offices on the subject property. W&G Properties has been and continues to be sensitive to the neighborhood's desire to have retail use(s) on the subject site. W&G Properties continues to seek out potential viable retail tenants to co-occupy some of the first floor of the medical clinic buildings. · On behalf of W&G Properties, TBG approached Rick Wright with Market-of- Choice to determine his interest in developing a grocery store on the subject parcel. Mr. Wright turned down the opportunity because he believes that the site does not work for a large grocery store. He explained that the site is an isolated island located between I-5 and Coburg Road with insufficient access and exposure to generate the required user market for a grocery store. · In response to the neighborhood's concern about excessive parking and traffic impacts on their neighborhood due to the development of medical clinic offices, referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manuals (ITE), it appears that the neighborhood's desired grocery store would generate close to 3 times more traffic than a medical clinic office. · It seems that there has been undue attention by the neighborhood on this particular property to meet their perceived specific commercial needs while there is an additional approximately 2 acres of vacant commercial property within the Chase Node. · Neighborhood commercial uses already exist within the Chase Node Special Area Zone on the commercial parcels located off of Commons Drive. The existing multitenant retail building includes a convenience store, beauty salon, bar and coffee shop. · Consistent with nodal development, medical clinic offices in the Chase Node provide employment opportunities to neighborhood residents. In addition, the subject property is located in an area close to downtown with good transit connections as well as an area with increasing and diverse housing opportunities for employees. · Upon submittal of a building permit, W&G Properties intends on proposing a development scheme that complies with the Eugene City Code and therefore the nodal development concept. · In light of the amount of effort and public funding already dedicated to the Chase Node Special Area Zone, we encourage you to trust the process and decisions made by the previous City Council. We encourage you to avoid the mistake of modifying planning documents and/or the Eugene Code before the potential results of those previous decisions are manifested in a built development. The potential outcome of this mistake would be to scare off yet another developer of this longstanding vacant property. Furthermore, frequently modifying planning Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council April 1, 2005 Page 3 of 8 documents creates uncertainty and has a larger affect of discouraging economic development City wide. · Although W&G Properties' proposed conceptual plan does not meet the neighbor's vision for the Chase Node, the intensive use proposed by W&G Properties does meet the intent of nodal development. As the City Staff has identified, each node or Mixed Use Center is unique so we encourage you to rely on the adopted planning documents and Eugene City Code to provide the required guidance to begin to shape this unique Mixed Use Center. WRITTEN TESTIMONY W&G Properties purchased the subject site from Simpson Housing in December 2004. During the due diligence period of the property sale, W&G Properties began their research by approaching City Staff member, Kurt Yeiter, to understand the land use and development parameters for this parcel. Kurt confirmed a portion of this discussion in a letter dated August 16, 2004 that states "[t]he S-CN zone that applies to [their] property allows Clinics, Medical Health Treatment Facilities, and Administrative and Professional Office uses. There is no requirement that retail accompany these uses." (Reference the attached letter.) After confirmation of the allowed uses and relevant code standards, W&G Properties started soliciting interest from various tenants prior to the purchase of the property to determine the economic viability of the land purchase and future development opportunities for the site. While searching for potential tenants, W&G Properties has been and continues to be aware and sensitive to the neighborhood's request for small retail business and more specifically a grocery store use on this site. Additionally, W&G Properties invested considerable time and money during the due diligence period to hire a team of professional consultants who could begin the schematic design phase to determine the opportunities and challenges of developing the subject site. Once a conceptual plan was developed, W&G Properties applied for a Limited Consultation Conference on November 10, 2004 to clarify the questions and concerns they had specific to the proposed conceptual design as well as to begin a more formal dialogue with City Staff to proactively resolve any potential land use or transportation issues. The proposed conceptual plan submitted in the Limited Consultation Conference application proposed two 3-story medical clinic offices on the subject property. During the Limited Consultation Conference City Staff indicated that the proposed uses were allowed outright and a building permit application was all that would be required to develop the proposed development unless the owner elected to apply for an Adjustment Review. Overall, City Staff did not see any insurmountable barriers Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council April 1, 2005 Page 4 of 8 that would prevent W&G Properties from developing the proposed conceptual plan. (Reference the attached Limited Consultation Conference Meeting Notes for details.) There was a significant amount of effort and public funding over several years that went into determining that a medical clinic use is permitted outright without use limitations in the Chase Node. The City of Eugene applied for a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant in 1999 to study the Chase Node. The TGM public funding was used to hire Satre Associates, P.C. (via the award of an ODOT RFP) in mid 2000 to develop the "Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan" with the assistance of a multijurisdictional technical advisory committee and residents within and around the Chase Node Gardens area. Satre completed the final report on June 29, 2001. This development plan provided important information and guidance that influenced the process and outcome of the Eugene City Council adopted Ordinances 20265 and 20267~. Over a 2-year public process, the Eugene City Council amended the Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Study and adopted the Chase Node Special Area Zone. In order to approve the proposed plan amendments and establish the Chase Node Special Area Zone, the City Council determined that the proposals met the applicable criteria for approval. (Reference Ordinances 20265 and 20267.) The adopted Chase Node Special Area Zone outright permits medical clinic use in the S-CN/C commercial zone with no Special Use Limitations (Eugene City Code Table 9.3115). However, there is a Special Use Limitation (EC 9.3116(6)) for other identified business uses per Table EC 9.3115. "Except as provided herein, no single retail tenant store, single retail tenant, or number of retail tenants sharing a common space shall occupy more than 20,000 square feet of building area within the same building. Notwithstanding this general rule, within S-CN Special Area Zone, 1 store may occupy up to 50,000 square feet of building area in a single building if that store's primary use of building area is for grocery sales. The limitations of this subsection do not apply to offices or other non-retail uses, which may occupy more than 50,000 square feet of building area." This Special Use Limitation specifically states that non-retail uses, like a medical clinic use, do not apply to this limitation and can occupy more than 50,000 square feet of ~ On November 12, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinances 20265 ("An Ordinance Concerning the Chase Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Willakenzie Area Plan .... ") and Ordinance 20267 ("An Ordinance establishing a Chase Node Special Area Zone;... Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; .... "). The proceedings were initiated by the City of Eugene following a Type V Application process. Adoption of the Ordinances required a public hearin~ review and recommendation by the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions to the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners. Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council April 1, 2005 Page 5 of 8 building area. In addition, as City Staff noted in the Limited Consultation Conference, there is no code requirement that retail uses accompany medical clinic uses on this parcel. Therefore, as Staff expressed in the Limited Consultation, there currently do not appear to be any barriers that would prevent W&G Properties from developing the property exclusively with medical clinic office uses. Furthermore, the Chase Node Special Area Zone Development Standards and other applicable development standards provide design standards that address site planning, landscape, pedestrian and transit environments and architectural considerations to promote compatibility between various uses in the node, to reduce the impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood and to support nodal development objectives. W&G Properties intends on complying with the Eugene Code requirements. Therefore, their proposal will be consistent with nodal development in the Chase Node Special Area Zone as approved by the City Council. The prior owner's development proposal was challenged by the following code requirements. The three code criteria were to provide a main entry on the street- facing fac~ade, provide two functional floors, and eliminate drive-up services. Although these code criteria support the nodal development concept2 established through the lengthy public process, the Harlow Neighbors recommended modification of these three code criteria in their letter to Tom Coyle, dated November 4, 2004. (Reference attached letter.) In contrast, as stated above, W&G Properties intends on proposing a development that meets the code criteria and thus the intent of nodal development in the Chase Node Special Area Zone. Even though W&G Properties' proposed medical clinic use complies with the Eugene Code, the proposed conceptual plan has been the cause of concern by the neighborhood because they would like a grocery store and a retail center on the subject property. They are also concerned that medical clinic offices will generate excessive traffic and parking impacts on the neighborhood (Jack Radabaugh. Guest Viewpoint, The Register-Guard. February 15, 2005. Pg 11A.) As stated above W&G Properties has been and continues to be sensitive to the neighborhood's desire to have retail use(s) on the subject site. However, as Jack Radabaugh pointed out in this Register-Guard article regarding the proposed development by Simpson and Gramor, "[n]o builder was prepared to invest in a project guaranteed to lose money." Simpson and Gramor might have conceptualized a grocery store on the subject site. However, they did not have a committed grocery 2 Consistent with Eugene-Springfield TransPlan and Metro Plan, the Willakenzie Area Study, Chase Gardens Subarea, identifies "[n]odal Development [as a] mixed-use, pedestrian friendly land use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented." (Exhibit B. Ordinance 20265. Pg Exhibit B-1.) Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council April 1, 2005 Page 6 of 8 tenant. While Simpson and Gramor owned the subject property, they approached Rick Wright with the Market-of-Choice to develop a grocery store on the subject parcel. Mr. Wright turned down the opportunity because he believes that the site does not work for a large grocery store. He explained that the site is an isolated island located between I-5 and Coburg Road with insufficient access and exposure to generate the required user market for a grocery store. On behalf of W&G Properties, TBG also approached Rick Wright prior to W&G Properties' purchase of the property. Mr. Wright expressed the same concern and disinterest. Ultimately, W&G Properties is going to propose a development that both guarantees economic viability and meets the required code standards. At this time, the development of a supermarket does not appear marketable despite a prior study performed by the City Planning Department. However, the proposed Limited Consultation Conference conceptual plan illustrates a development that is both economically viable and meets the required code standards. In this Register-Guard article Jack Radabaugh also pointed out that the reason Gramor chose to withdraw from the process of developing this site was due to the development constraints required by the Eugene Code, Chase Node Special Area Zone, as outlined above. However, in a meeting Kurt Yeiter informed W&G Properties that City Staff had encouraged Gramor to submit a letter discussing their proposal including the challenges and the needed code adjustments to make their development possible. Although the City Staff was willing to work with Gramor, Gramor never submitted a letter. It is unknown why Gramor withdrew from the process, however, due to the difficulty of siting a large grocery store in this location, Gramor might have withdrawn because they were not "prepared to invest in a project guaranteed to lose money" rather than the inability to meet code standards. In response to the neighborhood's concern about excessive parking and traffic impacts on their neighborhood, referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manuals (ITE), it appears that the neighborhood's desired grocery store would generate close to three times more traffic than a medical clinic office. Grocery 12.02 vehicles/1000 square feet weekday pm peak 10.45 vehicles/1000 square feet pm peak adjacent street 102.24 vehicles/1000 square feet weekday daily Medical/Dental Office 4.45 vehicles/1000 square feet weekday pm peak 3.75 vehicles/1000 square feet pm peak adjacent street 36.13 vehicles/1000 square feet weekday daily Additionally, W&G Properties' proposed development will provide on-site parking in compliance with the required Eugene Code for the proposed use(s). Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council April 1, 2005 Page 7 of 8 It seems that there has been undue attention by the neighborhood on this particular property to meet their perceived specific commercial needs while there is additional vacant commercial property within the Chase Node. W&G Properties owns 8.5 acres of the approximately 12 acres of commercially zoned property within the Chase Node Special Area Zone. There is approximately 2 acres of undeveloped commercial property to the east of the subject parcel across Garden Way. This property is currently being advertised as an available build-to-suit commercial property, which holds the same potential of providing future retail business development and more specifically a grocery store in the neighborhood (if marketable). In addition, neighborhood commercial uses already exist within the Chase Node Special Area Zone on the commercial parcels located off of Commons Drive. The existing multitenant retail building includes a convenience store, beauty salon, bar and coffee shop. Similarly, consistent with nodal development, medical clinic offices in the Chase Node provide employment opportunities to neighborhood residents. The Chase Node Special Area Zone is located off of a" . . . major collector and part of the 'major transportation system' of the region .... Transportation efficiency is a guiding principle of the nodal development concept. The nodal development plan focuses on improving transportation efficiencies of new development through the use of alternative modes of travel, land use arrangements that encourage pedestrian and public transit travel, and strategic placement of uses and transit facilities, and use of design standards" (Exhibit C-10. Number 8, Policy A.11. Ordinance No. 20265.). The subject property is located in an area close to downtown with good transit connections as well as an area with increasing and diverse housing opportunities for employees. In light of the amount of effort and public funding already dedicated to the Chase Node Special Area Zone, we encourage you to trust the process and decisions made by the previous City Council. We encourage you to avoid the mistake of modifying planning documents and/or the Eugene Code before the potential results of those previous decisions are manifested in a built development. The potential outcome of this mistake would be to scare off yet another developer of this longstanding vacant property. Furthermore, frequently modifying planning documents creates uncertainty and has a larger affect of discouraging economic development City wide. Upon submittal of a building permit, W&G Properties intends to propose a development scheme that complies with the Eugene City Code and therefore the nodal development concept. Although W&G Properties' proposed conceptual plan does not meet the neighbors' vision for the Chase Node, the intensive use proposed by W&G Properties does meet the intent of nodal development. As the City Staff has identified, each node or Mixed Use Center is unique so we encourage you to rely on Honorable Mayor Piercy and City Council April 1, 2005 Page 8 of 8 the adopted planning documents and Eugene City Code to provide the required guidance to begin to shape this unique Mixed Use Center. s~ ~/'~ J~/'/~/.//-w~, John Lawless, AIA Principal KGT/nl Enclosures: 1) Le~er from Ku~ YelLer, d~Led April 1 ~, 2004. ~) LimiLed Consuk~Lion Conference NoLes, d~ed December 8, 2004. ]) Le~er from Lhe H~rlow Neighbors, d~Led November 4, 2004. cc: Wally Graft and Nathan Philips, W~G Prope~/es Bill Kloos, Zaw Office or,iii K/oos, PC Z:IPROJI200449 W&G MI K StudylCorresp~4genc)/1200449-Work Session. doc JAN-25-2005(TUE) 11:18 Prop~-±ies P. 001/081 08/16/04 MON 15;04 FAX $4! '~Z 5572 CITY EUG PDD ~001 ' Planning & Development Planning City of Eugene 99 West IDm Avonu¢ Eugano. 0reg~n 97401 (541) §82-5377 (541) 682-5572 FAX vary.el.eugene,or, us August 16, 2004 Wally Graft $41 willamette Stre:l, Suite 106 Eugen=, O1~, 97401 SUBIECT: Chase Nodal Development Arca De~r Mr. Gra~ This letter is written to confirm ~ portion of our discussion of August 5, 2004 regarding allowable uses within the Chzse Node Special Area (S-CN) Zone. Specifically, we were discussing tho 8+ aero properly located at the not.west comer of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Garden Way, a~d west of the Man;he Chase street. Tee S-CN zone that applie~ to that property allows Clinics, Medical Health Treatment Facilities, Md Administrative and Professimml Office uses. Thea'e is rio requixemcnt that retail accompany these trees. As we discussed, City staff feels that some retail services in that area would well serve area resident, and our market research supports thai idea, but retail activity is not required by the property's zone regulations (roe Eugene Land Use Code Section 9.3100 et al). Sincerely, Kurt Ycite~~''' Prindpal Plauue~ MEMORANDUM TO: Wally Graff, W&G Properties FROM: Kristen Taylor DATE: December 8, 2004 SUBJECT: MLK Study Limited Consultation Conference Meeting Notes (200449/1.3) I have included the City Staffs' response in bold under the original questions from the Limited Consultation Conference application dated November 10, 2004. Additional questions and follow up issues are highlighted in red. Those present at the Limited Consultation Conference: Wally Graff, W&G Properties Nathan Philips, W&G Properties Fred Hample, Hamp/e Marketing John Fisher, Attorney Doug Weber, Weber E#iott £ngineers P.C. Kristen Taylor, TBG,4rc/~itects & Planners, INC City of Eugene Staff Katharine Kappa, rand Use ,4na/,vst Heather O'Donnell, rand Use ,4na/yst Ku rt Yeite r, Principal Planner Leslie Price, Engineering Permit Technician Responses to Questions (in bold): 1. We have had preliminary discussions with Kurt Yeiter regarding the dev.elopment of medical offices on the subject parcel. He as well as LUCU indicate that the development of medical offices within the Chase Node Special Area Zone is permitted and subject to relevant code criteria under the Chase Node Special Area Zone, Commercial Zone Development Standards and General Standards. Can the applicant develop exclusively multi-tenant medical offices or primarily medical offices with the possibility of limited ground floor retail on the subject site? Are there any unusual or complicated code restrictions associated with this development proposal? MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 2 Per Table EC 9.3115, multi-tenant medical office uses are permitted outright in the S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone. So yes, the applicant can exclusively develop multi-tenant medical offices on this site. To answer the second part of the question, Kurt started the discussion by explaining the general intent of the S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone. In summary, the S-CN Special Area Zone development standards were created to encourage mixed use development and discourage big box development. Commercial services are sized and located to serve as a neighborhood center, to be compatible with surrounding residential uses and not unduly draw from a large region outside the nodal development area. Consequently, the development standards limit the retail business size in the S-CN/Commercial zoning designation. (For exact code language, see the footnote below~.) · Maximum total retail area in a single building is 20,000 square feet unless for grocery sales. · Maximum retail area for a single building with a primary use of grocery sales is 50,000 square feet. · Note, non-retail and/or office uses may occupy more than 50,000 square feet in a single building. In other words, there is no building area limitation for non-retail and/or office uses. Therefore, the applicant's proposed clinic/medical health treatment facility use does not have a building area limitation. So the answer to the second part of the question is yes, the applicant can develop primarily medical offices with ground floor retail on the subject site per the relevant code standards (i.e. S-CN; General Commercial Zone, Large Commercial Facility and/or Large Multi-Tenant Commercial Facilities Development Standards; and General Standards for All Development, etc.). 2. Per the conceptual site plan it is my understanding that the proposal must comply with the relevant code criteria under the Chase Node Special Area Zone, Large Commercial Facilities Development Standards and General Standards. If there are inconsistencies within these standards then the stricter standards apply. ~ Per EC 9.3116(6) Business Size Limits in S-CN/C. Except as provided herein, no single retail store, single retail tenant, or number of retail tenants sharing a common space shall occupy more than 20,000 square feet of building area within the Same building. Notwithstanding this general rule, within the S-CN Special Area Zone, 1 store may occupy up to 50,000 square feet of building area in a single building if that store's primary use of building area is for grocery sales. The limitations of this subsection do not apply to offices or other non- retail uses, which may occupy more than 50,000 square feet of building area. MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 3 Is this interpretation correct? Yes, this interpretation is correct. Per EC 9.3125(1)(a), in the event of conflict between the General Standards for All Development (EC 9.6000-9.6885) and S- CN development standards (EC 9.3125-9.3126), the S-CN development standards shall control. Furthermore, in the event of conflict between the S-CN development standards and other relevant code sections, the S-CN development standards prevail over all other development standards. 3. If the applicant adds another building (totaling 3 buildings), it is my understanding that the Large Multi-Tenant Commercial Facilities apply. Is this interpretation correct? Yes, this interpretation is correct. Them is a typing error under EC 9.3125(3)(c). The reference to the large commercial facilities should read "see EC 9.2175" rather than "see EC 9.2173." In addition, EC 9.3125(3)(f)(3) indicates that "[alii structures along Garden Way and Marche Chase Drive shall comply with EC 9.2173, Commercial Zone Development Standards- Large Commercial Facilities." However, if the applicant proposes at least 50,000 square feet of floor area within 3 or more new buildings on the development site, the proposed development must comply with EC 9.2173, Commercial Zone Development Standards- Large Commercial Facilities as well as EC 9.2175, Commercial Zone Development Standards- Large Multi-Tenant Commercial Facilities. 4. With the exception of the possible need to apply for an Adjustment Review, are there any required land use applications for the proposed development? Leslie Price noted that a Traffic Impact Analysis Review 0-lA) would likely be required per EC 9.8650-9.8680. See Leslie's attached notes titled "LC 04-64 W&G Properties" under "Additionally..." Kristen will follow up with Gary McNeel on 12/9/04 at 3:30 p.m. to discuss in more detail the need and requirements for a TIA. The TIA and Adjustment Review applications are Type II Application processes. The Type II review process provides for administrative review by the planning director. The application process includes notice to nearby occupants and property owners. It can take approximately 80 days for a decision to be rendered. However, it has been my experience that City Staff processes Type II MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 4 Applications quicker than 80 days. Adjustment Review and TIA applications can be submitted concurrently. Katharine confirmed with Keli Osborn, Permit Review Manager, that an Adjustment Review application can be submitted concurrently with a building permit application. Keli said that she would also be open to trying to review a TIA concurrently with a building permit. City Staff is concerned that the potential outcome of the TIA review might require design changes which could affect the building permit approval. Therefore, City Staff recommends that the applicant might want to develop the TIA in advance of completing the building permit drawings and review the results of the TIA with City Staff to identify in advance any changes that might be required. In addition, if the applicant wants to relocate the existing 20' access easement, Steve Nystrom, via telephone communication (12/2/04), indicated that the Partition, Final Plat, does not need to be amended. The applicant will need to submit a Vacation of an Unimproved Public Easement (PUE) application to move the existing easement. Vacation of an Unimproved PUE is a Type I Application. The Type I review process provides for administrative review by the planning director. The application process does not include public notice. It can take approximately 65 days for a decision to be rendered. However, Steve said that City Staff typically processes Type I Applications in a few weeks. He said that City Staff will want to see the location of the relocated easement at the time of the submittal of the Vacation of an Unimproved PUE application. He suggests that the applicant submit the Vacation of an Unimproved PUE application concurrently with the proposal of the new replacement easement. When I asked him if we could submit this Type I application concurrently with the building permit application, he said that I would need to follow up with Keli Osborn for an answer to this question. 5. What is the proposed use and purpose of the 20' access easement directly to the north of the subject property? Kurt explained that the easement was established to provide a schematic circulation pattern, which met street connectivity standards (no greater than a 600'-0" block length distance between streets). The approved refinement plan amendment and zone change for the Chase Node includes language requiring 2 accessways connecting Garden Way and Marche Chase Drive through the MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 5 land between MLK Boulevard and Kinsrow Avenue. In addition, EC 9.3125(2)(a)(1) requires that the location of streets conform to Map 9.3125(2)(a)(1), which illustrates 2 streets. Kurt clarified that the map indicates the northern street as a "Local Streets and Local Collectors.~ It is intended to read as an "Easements for through-traffic and pedestrian access and/or alleyway.~ The City envisioned this particular accessway as an alleyway between the commercial and residential developments, which would function as the loading and delivery drive for the commercial development located to the south. The easement is in this particular location because the Simpson Partition application included specific street dedication easements to satisfy the refinement plan and street connectivity standards (EC 9.6810-9.6815). At the time of the Partition approval, the subject site and the property to the north were under single ownership. Kurt pointed out that although the street connectivity standards require private streets to be fully improved per City standards, the City is willing to be flexible to allow one of the 2 accessways to occur throu§h a parking aisle. Leslie said that if one of the accessways occurred through a parking aisle, the City would most likely require that the parking be angled. Leslie responded that the City would be open to potentially allowing 90 degree parking in one of the accessways, if it is determined that this parking orientation does not affect the intent and function of the 2 accessways. A TIA would need to be performed to make this determination. 6. Per EC 9.3125(3)(c), "[alt least two drives (public or private) shall be shown making a connection between Garden Way and Marche Chase Drive." The proposed conceptual site plan proposes one private vehicle drive connecting Garden Way and Marche Chase Drive. Additionally, the access easement that exists north of the subject parcel could provide a second vehicle drive connecting Kinsrow Road and Marche Chase Drive. Would this proposed development have to provide this second connecting drive to meet this code criterion? If so please explain why and the conditions. As stated above under #5, 2 accessway easements are required to connect Garden Way and Marche Chase Drive through the land between MLK Boulevard and Kinsrow Avenue. Katharne showed the group the newly submitted building permit application drawings for the property to the north, MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 6 Willamette Garden Apartments. It appears that the Willamette Gardens Apartments proposal does not include an accessway. Therefore, the subject property would need to include the 2 required accessways. It is Nathan's understanding that the Willamette Gardens Apartment had initially intended to provide an accessway through the southern most parking aisle. However, City Staff noted that in order to meet the Multiple-Family Standards parking court requirements, the northern property owner added a demountable curb so that there is no longer access through this parking aisle. It also appears that the Willamette Garden Apartment proposed driveway entrance to this southern most parking aisle is located closer than 100'-0" to the adjacent access easement driveway. Therefore, it is probable that they will have to relocate their driveway or the easement will need to be relocated to comply with the 100~-0~ required between driveways. We discussed the City's ability and willingness to adjust the parking court requirements (EC 9.5500(12)) for the southern most parking aisle on the northern property, which is allowed per EC 9.8030(8)(0. The purpose of this code adjustment would be to potentially locate the access easement in this location. City Staff was open to receiving an Adjustment Review application for this code adjustment at any time including after the commencement or completion of the construction of the Willamette Garden Apartment project. The applicant would need to approach the owner of the northern property to negotiate these details (develop TIA proving 90 degree parking is viable, submittal of an Adjustment Review application, relocation of the access easement to the northern property, removal of the demountable curb and redevelopment of the parking aisle). There is the potential that the northern property owner might be motivated to work with the applicant considering that they had originally intended this parking aisle to be a through drive between Garden Way and Marche Chase Drive. In addition, this solution will remedy the conflict that the northern property owner's driveway for the southern most parking aisle is located less than 100'-0" from the existing access easement. If the applicant would like to relocate the easement, as stated under #4 above, the applicant will need to submit a Vacation of an Unimproved Public Easement (PUE) application to move the existing easement. As long as the function of the accessway is met, the applicant will not be required to amend any of the relevant planning documents. The applicant will need to make findings in the Vacation of an Unimproved Public Easement (PUE) application MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 7 that the proposed easements meet the intent outlined in the adopted ordinance (Ordinance #?), refinement plan (Willakenzie Area Plan) and Eugene Code. Kurt, I have an item in my notes that needs additional clarification. Is an Adjustment Review application required to relocate the easement? Kurt added that the applicant is not required to draft a full access easement for these 2 accessways. The applicant can elect to draft an access easement that simply prohibits closure of the accessways between Garden Way and Marche Chase Drive as well as adds language that allows the easement to be relocated in future development. 7. EC 9.3125(3)(d) addresses Building Facades and Ground Floor Windows in S- CN/C Subareas. It is my understanding that there has been a recent staff interpretation of this code standard under the Large Commercial Facilities section of the code (EC 9.21 73(10)) which limits the facades required to comply with this criteria. We have concerns with security and privacy if windows are required on all ground floor facades per the Building Facades and Ground Floor Windows Standards in S-CN/C Subareas. It appears that per EC 9.3125(1)(b) the Building Facades and Ground Floor Windows Standards in S-CN/C Subareas may be adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(18). In light of the recent interpretation, how does this impact EC 9.3125(3)(d)? If we need to apply for an adjustment review to these code sections (i.e. limit the required transparent ground floor windows to the street facing facades), what is the chance of approval? Katharine confirmed that a building fasade with a loading dock does not need to comply with EC 9.3125(3)(d). All other facades will need to comply with the criteria under EC 9.3125(3)(d). An adjustment to these code standards is allowed through an Adjustment Review application in accordance with EC 9.8030(18). Katharine, does this interpretation only apply to facades with loading docks or can they be the "back" facades with loading and delivery services (without a specific loading dock)? 8. Can the maximum building height of 50 feet for commercial be adjusted? If not, are there other methods to extend the maximum building height above 50 feet? For example, if the applicant provides retail on a portion of the first floor of a building, can the building height be 65 feet and 4 stories? MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 8 Yes, the maximum building height of 50 feet for commercial can be adjusted through an Adjustment Review application in accordance with EC 9.8030(18). Kurt added that the neighbors have expressed a strong desire for retail use on the subject site. He thinks that there will probably be public concern if there is no retail proposed in the development of the subject site. Kurt referred to a letter from Tom Coyle regarding neighbor concerns. Kurt said that he would make a copy of this letter available to Kristen. Kurt also noted that Garden Way is viewed by the City as the #1 street of importance to the Chase Garden Node and Marche Chase is #2 street. Therefore, it will be tougher to adjust code standards for development along Garden Way. 9. Do the conceptual buildings proposed on the conceptual site plan meet the applicable setback and building orientation requirements? Katharine said that the buildings proposed on the conceptual site plan appear to meet the setback requirements. Katharine noted that the City will review the setback requirements and all other related land use criteria once the final drawings are submitted for review. So we need to make sure that all of the relevant requirements are met in the final set of drawings. Kurt added that the City recognizes the potential difficultly in meeting the setback requirements in the curvy sections of Marche Chase Drive and Garden Way so the City is open to adjustments to the setback standards. 10. Have we represented the zoning and street classification listed above under the "Site Characteristics and Surrounding Uses" correctly? Yes, we have represented the zoning and street classification listed above under the "Site Characteristics and Surrounding Uses" correctly. 11. Have we overlooked any public improvement or land use codes affected by the proposed conceptual site plan? If yes, please explain. · Have we misinterpreted any code requirements presented within our questions and/or enclosed in the drawing? At this conceptual stage, it is difficult for the City to closely review compliance with all of the code standards. As stated above, we need to verify that the applicant's development proposal meets all of the relevant code standards and MEMORANDUM December 8, 2004 Page 9 in the cases where the code standards need adjustment, an Adjustment Review application will need to be submitted. The City recognizes that the Chase Node code standards are new and "untested" so they will work with us to clarify any ambiguity. Enclosures: 1) Leslie Price's notes titled "LC 04-64 W&G Properties" with attachments. cc: Nathan Philips, W&G' Properties Fred Hample, Hample Marketing John Fisher, Attorney Doug Weber, Weber E//iott Engineers P.C. Katharine Kappa, Land Use Analyst Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Leslie Price, Engineering Permit Technician Gary McNeel, Senior Transportation Ana/yst Z: IPROJI200449 W&G ML K StudylCorrest~ ~4gency1200449-L imited Consult Memo- 12. 2. 04. doc 1361Luella Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 November 4, 2004 Mr. Tom Coyle Executive Manager Planning and Development Department City of Eugene 99 West Tenth Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Dear Mr. Coyle, Harlow Neighbors appreciates your kind offer to recommend modification of the three conditions imposed on the Graymor proposal for development of a retail center at the ten acre Chase Gardens site. The three conditions imposed by the City Council were 1. Doors facing the street, 2. Two story buildings, 3. No drive up services. Doors Facing the Street This limitation creates special problems for businesses because the customers are parking in the interior areas of the development and are forced to walk around the building to gain access to the door. This awkward arrangement forces the business to build two doors, creating a costly surveillance problem, especially for a small business with only one employee on duty. The requirement should be modified to allow the business or the developer to determine door location. It is not clear that parking will be permitted on the streets encircling the project. The only available parking in quantity will be in the interior of the project, not on the perimeter Two Story Buildings This requirement defeats the purpose of filling the structures with tenants. During the development of a plan for construction of an upscale retail area two studies were undertaken to determine whether two story structures throughout the interior of the project were viable in terms of occupation of space. Both studies indicated that two story structures would result in empty buildings on the second floor. The builder proposed shadow construction in the event that intensity of business ever reached the point of providing need for a second story. This restriction substantially eliminates the possibility of finding a builder willing to construct space which initially is guaranteed to stand empty. The single story arrangement is additionally attractive in appearance as is the case at the square at Oakmont. Some of the property owners on the perimeter of the project along Garden Way had agreed to consider construction of multiple story structures for commercial 2 development. The original proposal included construction of a single story 50,000 square foot grocery store. Eliminating the two story requirement for the interior buildings would still result in some two and perhaps three story construction along the outer edge of the project. The ideal solution here is a mix of single story and multiple story structures. No Drive Up Services This requirement eliminates ATMs and pharmacy drive up service. It is our understanding that such drive up services are permitted at other node developments in Eugene. There is no apparent reason why such a restriction should be applied at Chase Gardens if not at the other nodes. The traffic generation argument is negated by the gains made where the 5,000 plus people who now live in the Chase Gardens area would not have to drive two miles out and two miles back, a round trip of our miles, to obtain drive .up services. The advantage of available close by services is increased by the fact that some users would come in by foot or on bikes. Committees from the Harlow neighborhood began working on an effort to obtain a wide variety of retail and commercial services as far back as the 1990s. High density apartment development was allowed in the area without a thought about providing easy access to the physical services required by all apartment dwellers. The node study funded by the Oregon Department of Transportation and DLCD resulted in seven different proposals which would solve this problem. Now we are confronted by the possibility that all of the available ten acres will be devoted exclusively to medical services buildings while the retail needs of the people who live in the area continue to go unmet. Reducing the need to drive four miles to obtain services will result in improvement of the air pollution problem created by existing circumstances. On the basis of providing the greatest good for the greatest number, these three restrictions should be eliminated to expedite execution of the goalS listed in the City of Eugene study carried out by Satre Associates. Respectful~ted,Torry~ite Harlow Neighbors Chase Gardens Committee Terry Froemming Chairman, Harlow Neighbors 3 De~e~tter Editor I~ Jack Radabaug~ on Martha Scofield Jon ~- ~K'e 1 ly ATTACHMENT E April 1, 2005 Walter A. Graft III Nathan Philips W & G Properties 541 Willamette Street Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Wally and Nathan, I am writing to elaborate on previous discussions we have had regarding the viability of retail space in your proposed project on Martin Luther King Boulevard. Besides general conceptual concerns about the viability of the node concept on this site, I have serious economic concerns based on my experience. Let me elaborate. My partner, Jeff Elder, represented the developers of one of the larger apartment projects in the Chase Village area. They were persuaded, in the development process, to create a small retail center within the apartment area. Since the building was built three years ago, there is one space in the center that was unleased and unoccupied until December when a coffee vendor moved in. The convenience store appears to be making it, but only because of the volume of alcohol that is sold from the premises. The "pub," or neighborhood bar, has struggled from the beginning. The original owner partnership split, and the remaining partner will assign the business to the current manager at the end of the lease term. A hair salon lease is in good standing, so it apparently is getting by. Rents are low, at $1.05 per square foot. When the small strip center was built, the neighborhood hoped for a grocery store. Jeff contacted all of the major grocery chains and was rejected by every one. He then went to the main convenience store operators, and only after concerted effort, found an independent operator willing to run the business. Jeff feels that without the alcohol sales, it would be a challenge for even a convenience store to succeed in that location. Down the road, just a few blocks away, Centennial Shopping Center is an older neighborhood center, that under the new "node" concept should be a rousing success. It is surrounded by housing, and is on a busy street that links Eugene and Springfield. In fact, the center has been plagued with vacancies. It has a failed grocery store and the corner, "pad site," has never sold. The rental rates have declined over time to remarkably low rates (from 66¢ to 83¢ per square foot), and the difficulty of attracting businesses to the center is an ongoing challenge. 101 East Broadway Suite 101 Eugenc, OR 97401 TEL: (541) 345-4860 FAX: (541) 345-9649 On Country Club Road, inside a 58,000 square foot building, adjacent to another 58,000 square foot building, and just a few hundred feet from several other substantial office buildings, there is a deli (Garden Deli). One would think that the density of office workers in the area would ensure a small deli's success. In fact, the deli has changed hands several times over its life, and it subsists not on the traffic in and out of the office buildings, but on catering for business meetings. This very limited attempt to create a mixed use commercial node in the context of one Eugene's highest density office neighborhoods has been unsuccessful. I understand the neighborhood's desire to have a grocery store in the MLK area. The perspective of the potential tenants, unfortunately, doesn't support this desire. None of the many grocery store operators to whom we have presented the Chase Gardens node have expressed an interest in this location. Based on their analysis of the neighborhood density, demographics, and traffic patterns this location was not of interest. The life of a retailer is challenging. What retailer would locate where they did not have a reasonable expectation of being successful? If driving is an option, people will shop where they can get the best deal. The better deals come from larger retailers, who are located further away, leaving the neighborhood retailer to struggle. There is another example of the economic challenges facing known, successful businesses when considering new locations. Newmans Fish Market is by all definitions a successful business. They have thrived in Eugene for many years. They have had numerous opportunities to find 2nd or 3rd sites in Eugene and have declined because of the financial risks involved. They have finally agreed, only after two years of consideration, to lease an 800 square foot storefront in The Pavilion, on Coburg Road. Coburg Road is a first rate location for retail. If it took Newmans years to make this decision, and they are taking only 800 square feet, there is an inherent message about the risks involved, even in one of Eugene's premier retail locations. So how does this relate to your development project on MLK? I think you need to be very careful when considering including retail space in your project. I believe that to include more than one storefront, that perhaps provides a deli/coffee/specialty convenience store, is a mistake. I do not believe that the density, or the buying habits of people, would ensure the success that a small retailer needs to take the financial risk. The kinds of businesses that one would want and expect in a neighborhood shopping node, such as restaurants, dry cleaners, salons, and clothing stores simply could not survive in a less than perfect location. The up-front costs to build the space and in-fill with tenant improvements, could not be justified in this location. Because of the medical office patients and employees who would be frequenting the building, a small (perhaps 2,000 square feet) specialty grocery/coffee/wine store that could serve both the neighborhood and the users of the buildings would have a reasonable chance of success, if the rent is not excessive. In my opinion, more than that is an unreasonable risk to the investors who are risking their resources to build the project There is much to say about this issue, and there are many viewpoints, but I base my opinion on my 18 years doing exclusively commercial real estate. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the gap between a vision, and what can actually be successfully achieved, is deep and wide. Please feel free to call me if you want to discuss this concept further. I look forward to talking to you soon. ..~incerely, /~/ -Sue Prichard