The developers of Pringle Square -- who propose rental apartments and a nursing home on Salem's downtown riverfront -- walked into a concerned citizen hornet's nest with their ill-advised plan to gain access to their property by taking over part of much-beloved Riverfront Park.
Let's marvel at how poorly Mountain West Investment and its developer spinoff, Minto View LLC, has handled things.
First, the old Boise Cascade property is bought without the buyers knowing how they were going to be able to access the portion of the land west of the railroad tracks. Most people who buy land want to have the access question settled first.
But Minto View LLC had a backward attitude, which has gotten them into well-deserved problems. Yesterday local architect Geoffrey James released a terrific analysis of Pringle Square, "Access to Boise Property: The Solution."
Here's what James has to say about the developer's backwardness.
Normally a developer ensures he has ACCESS first, before proceeding with detailed designs. The "Team" were so anxious to take up council time by talking at length (a series of consultants) about the detailed design of the apartments. The Mayor was right that the basic question to start with is ACCESS and explain why the access through the park is claimed to be the only way. However, in this case, the applicant proceeded with detailed Site Plan Review etc. BEFORE confirming access.
They should have confirmed that a NORTH access was permitted before hiring an expensive team of consultants to do a detailed design, possibly ready for building permit processing. A very backwards way of project management, but possibly a high stakes poker game, i.e. having a development designed and ready to go, assuming the Chamber [of Commerce] could help them get a park access anyway.
They did not count on the Public being awake, enlightened, and perceptive. They will not get away with that ploy. There IS access available, in a way that the Carousel and Riverfront Park is not violated.
Yes, there is. Several ways, in fact. Ways that don't require the City of Salem having to go back on its agreement to keep Riverfront Park in public outdoor recreation use in perpetuity.
There is no need to hand over part of the Carousel parking lot so the Pringle Square developer can build a private access road through it. Most of the people who testified at last Monday's City Council meeting were appropriately outraged by this attempted public land grab.
Which is completely unnecessary.
Minto Brown LLC and Mountain West Investment are trying to make the Carousel parking lot takeover into a "my way or the highway" deal. If the City doesn't allow access to the Pringle Square apartments through the parking lot, they threaten that the entire development plan could collapse, because there is no other viable access route.
To put it bluntly, that's bullshit. Here's why I say that.
For one, James presents a detailed plan for access through a Bellevue Street railroad crossing.
The attached aerial map shows the Pringle Square complex entrance to be at Bellevue SE. You turn right to enter the Mixed Use development of the old mill, with parking at its lower levels, and commercial leased retail office space above, and residential units above, and added on the south (Bellevue) side.
You drive straight ahead and cross the tracks at that existing railroad crossing and drive through the Slough parking lot. Location of the proposed bridge (see above) will be where it needs to connect to the apartment interior parking lots, so maybe close to the tracks. That solves the Access Issue, and still allows the apartment development to proceed.
For two, the Pringle Square Access web site shows a plan that assures emergency access via Bellevue Street and a current railroad underpass on the Pringle Square property. (A backup route is needed in case a train blocks a railroad crossing into the apartments.)
Main public access to the property would be off of Front Street. Thus there would be no need to mess with the Riverfront Park Carousel parking lot. And the safety of people visiting the park.
With the current proposal, all carousel traffic would be forced to exit via the apartment complex driveway. This would further traffic congesting through this small access.
If access is granted, 900+ additional vehicles EVERYDAY will pass directly through the Carousel entrance. In the event of an emergency, if the Carousel entrance is blocked by a train, Salem’s Emergency Responders would have to use the path through the park as an alternative emergency route. If that happens, Emergency Responders will have to choose between rushing to an emergency or driving slowly to protect the safety of park users.
Even though Pringle Square developers plan to reduce the size of the south parking lot by 30%, they say they will add seven new spaces and reconfigure it. That’s true, but here’s how they plan to do it:
1. They will eliminate the center island which currently serves as a safety refuge and allows parents to unload strollers, coolers, diaper bags, and other equipment before unbuckling small children from their car seats.
2. They will designate nearly half of the spaces as “compact” parking.
3. They will add spaces in front of the 1,200 square foot retail space next to the apartments. (Bear in mind the retailer will have the option to post “Reserved” signs, which would make those spaces off limits to park visitors)
A much better alternative is for the City of Salem to apply for a new public railroad crossing on the Pringle Square property. I've learned that nothing prevents the City from doing this; there is no requirement in state law or rule that opening up a new railroad crossing requires the closing of an old one.
Yet proponents of the development keep insinuating (or outright claiming) that the popular State Street pedestrian and vehicle railroad crossing into the park would have to be closed if a new crossing was built on the Pringle Square property.
Almost certainly, not true.
Go ahead and apply for a crossing, City of Salem, in concert with the developer and railroad. Make the developer access the apartments via private Pringle Square property, not public Riverfront Park property. If the estimated $500,000 cost of a crossing is too much for Minto View LLC, maybe it shouldn't be trying to build a $17 million apartment complex.
Meaning, if spending less than 3% of the project budget is going to make the apartments, a.k.a. The Residences at Riverfront Park, financially infeasible, maybe this isn't the right development for Salem's one and only downtown riverfront.
It's imperative to re-develop the Boise Cascade property right the first time, because there won't be a second chance.
How much is protecting the treasure of Riverfront Park worth? How much is protecting children and others who use the Carousel parking lot worth? At next Monday's City Council meeting, we'll learn how Salem's political leadership answer these questions.
Email them some advice: [email protected]
[Update: The always-interesting Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog had a recent post that presented a variation on the Pringle Square Access approach described above. I wrote about that plan in "Salem's Pringle Square development needs more creative planning." My main concern with it is that pedestrian access to the apartments across a bridge isn't enough. Nicely bike and walking-centric, but not really practical.]
Thank you for the kind words!
But there's a strange gulf in understanding on at least one of the central matters, and it is not clear what is so uncertain in ODOT Rail's stance. In multiple documents they've spelled it out quite unambigously!
From the September 28, 2009 staff report on the proposal to close State Street:
"On February 24, 2009, the City submitted a Railroad-Highway Public Crossing Safety Application with ODOT Rail Division for a new at-grade crossing...
"It is the mission of the ODOT Rail Division to eliminate at-grade railroad crossings whenever possible...ODOT Rail Division would not grant a new at-grade crossing without completely closing another existing, nearby, at-grade crossing....In order to secure approval of the new at-grade crossing, the City must either close or grade-separate (go over or under) one of its Riverfront Park rail crossings."
From a February 8, 2013 email from ODOT Rail:
"We are opposed to any new at grade crossings, whether for vehicles or peds."
ODOT Rail has left a pretty clear trail of opposition to new at-grade crossings.
To say otherwise means either 1) ODOT Rail had has a very new and significant change in policy, or 2) ODOT rail is playing Lucy to our Charlie Brown: "sure, knock yourself out, there's nothing stopping you from applying for a new crossing (but we sure as heck won't be approving one!)" The City and developer will like up for another try, and the Rail Division will pull the ball out from under the applicant.
If you have new information about a change in policy, please share it!
Otherwise at least grant to the other side in the debate on this particular matter (including Dick Hughes!) that there are good reasons to think ODOT Rail does not favor a new at-grade crossing and will, at the very least, make it very difficult to get.
(Of course this doesn't alter the larger point: The City and developer should aim higher!)
Posted by: Breakfast on Bikes | September 02, 2013 at 04:16 PM
Could you let us know who wrote the 2013 Rail Division email and what it was in reference to? I have no idea whether the person is talking generally, or specifically about the Pringle Square property. And the City staff report doesn't represent actual Rail Division policy. It represents what city staff said is Rail Division policy. Big difference.
Breakfast on Bikes, here's what I know: I've talked with Claudia Howells, who was the director of the Rail Division before she retired. She says that things have changed at the Rail Division since the "you must close one crossing to get a new one!" days. No new rules, but new staff and seemingly a new attitude.
Claudia suggested that I phone the current manager of the Crossing Safety Section, Rick Shankle, which I did. He confirmed what Claudia told me: there is nothing in statute or rule that requires the closing of one crossing if another one is opened. Whether or not this is required depends on the specific situation.
Claudia also told me that decisions of the Rail Division are appealable. One would expect this. Most decisions by government agencies are. If an applicant or affected party doesn't like the decision, it can be appealed, first I believe to a hearings officer. Then to the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
It is impossible to tell whether a new RR crossing application for the Pringle Square property would be approved unless an application is submitted. Rick told me that no one from the City of the Salem or the developer's team has talked with him about a new crossing. Why? We can only hazard guesses.
Since the developer wants to vacate the right of way to a previously approved crossing in the vicinity of Trade Street, I suspect that this fits with the "my way or the highway" attitude of the developer. The developer doesn't want to consider alternatives to taking over part of the Carousel parking lot.
Here's the interesting thing, though: to get a 6(f) conversion application for Riverfront Park approved by the National Park Service, the City will have to demonstrate that it has considered other viable alternatives to the proposed private use. So if the City ignores the obvious alternative of applying for a new RR crossing on the Pringle Square property, opponents of the conversion application will have strong grounds for demanding its denial.
You and others theorize about what could happen after an RR crossing application is submitted to the Rail Division. Only way to tell whose theory is most true is to conduct an experiment: submit an application for a new crossing.
Final thought: information from other states (such as Virginia) about the 6 (f) conversion process indicates that this can take a year or so. Since the takeover of the Carousel parking lot is so controversial, one can assume that the review and comment period of the City's application will be contentious and lengthy.
So applying to the state for a new RR crossing almost certainly would take less time than applying to the National Park Service for a 6 (f) conversion from public to private land which has no guarantee (or even a high probability) of being approved.
There is a misconception that approval of the developer's Carousel access proposal on September 9 would allow construction to start on the property. Not true. The developer could start construction, but good luck with getting a construction loan without approved access to the property. Which, again, could take up to year before it is known whether the NPS approves or denies the conversion application. Of course, appeals could follow.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 02, 2013 at 06:31 PM
Thanks for the additional info. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Rick Shankle is cc:'d on the Feb 8, 2013 email that said "We are opposed to any new at grade crossings, whether for vehicles or peds." Has he stepped forward with a clarification or correction in writing to the City? Maybe there is a change at ODOT Rail, but it could be also that in informal conversation they're just telling us what we want to hear. At any rate, what you have been saying about the length of time a 6(f) conversion application would take seems reasonable, and Council should weight that appropriately. Thanks again!
Posted by: Breakfast on Bikes | September 02, 2013 at 07:29 PM
Breakfast on Bikes, I edited my comment after it was first published. Maybe you responded before seeing the new first paragraph (below). Am still interested in knowing who wrote the email, and what it referred to. Without that info, it is difficult to give the email much credence.
--------------
Could you let us know who wrote the 2013 Rail Division email and what it was in reference to? I have no idea whether the person is talking generally, or specifically about the Pringle Square property. And the City staff report doesn't represent actual Rail Division policy. It represents what city staff said is Rail Division policy. Big difference.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 02, 2013 at 07:38 PM
It's in this post, the third image down -
http://breakfastonbikes.blogspot.com/2013/08/pringle-square-access-boise-cascade-redevelopment.html
Posted by: Breakfast on Bikes | September 02, 2013 at 07:48 PM
Thanks. I noticed that image when I read the post, but didn't click on it. Much appreciated.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 02, 2013 at 07:54 PM
Brian,
Thank you for presenting a wide spectrum of issues surrounding the Pringle Square development, access proposal and alternative access ideas. While the ODOT Rail Division may control permit and permit renewal for right-of-way RR crossing no new crossings are being considered. Both Bellevue and Ferry Street public right-of-ways remain established road ways on Salem zoning documents. Both of these access points shown in the breakfastonbikes site could provide access to the residential development area without the city granting an easement through the River Front parking lot at State Street.
Posted by: E.M. Easterly | September 06, 2013 at 11:53 PM