Monday 12 p.m. deadline, Marriott Hotel parking lot hearing, destroying downtown

[K A]

The downtown Marriott Hotel (owned by people in Spokane, Washington) wants to demolish some locally owned buildings, hurting locally owned businesses, and then build a parking lot.

People wrote letters of complaint and testified against it when it was at the Planning Commission level, and the PC denied it.  However, Marriott Hotel appealed and Monday, Aug. 5, 6 p.m. our City Councilors will decide it.

Our City Councilors are elected by YOU and your voice matters.  Something small is better than nothing at all.  Please take 5 minutes to send a very quick email to the City Recorder (it's against the rules to send it directly to any councilors) to say you oppose the demolition of buildings to put in a parking lot and that the parking lot violates many code criteria cited by other letter writers.

An example letter (if you want to spend 5+ minutes) that you can copy in its entirety, if you'd like, is below.

The deadline to register for oral testimony and to send written testimony is 12:00 pm Monday. 

Letters can be sent to "city.r...@corvallisoregon.gov" or use the form at "www.corvallisoregon.gov/publicinput."

Register with the City Recorder at the above email or 541-766-6729 x 5075 to orally testify via computer, phone, or in-person. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes unless otherwise granted by the Mayor.  You can send a letter and speak, if you like.

Notice of Public Hearing: https://apps.corvallisoregon.gov/webdocs/showdoc.aspx?docID=4496166

Thank you for caring about our downtown community.   : )

EXAMPLE LETTER BELOW HERE.  FEEL FREE TO COPY AS MUCH AS YOU WANT:

Dear City Council,

Please deny the Marriott Hotel parking lot as Corvallis Land Development Code does not allow it. This Marriott Hotel parking lot would hurt our downtown, locally-owned small businesses and negatively impact our community. Please deny this Conditional Development.

Also, both the Marriott Hotel owner and original applicant have Spokane Washington addresses and thus likely have no interest in protecting locally-owned small businesses and a thriving downtown. I suggest that their interests are purely financial, and not aligned with the good of our downtown community. After complaints about them being out-of-state, the owner has now hired a “Corvallis” firm to be the wolf in sheep's clothing.

As stated in numerous people's testimony (including that of the adjacent property owner who owns a long-time local business), demolishing a building that formerly hosted a locally-owned business and then building a parking lot is not beneficial to our community. The proposal is antithetical to a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly downtown and contrary to Corvallis code and our Comprehensive Plan.

The applicant claims it was inappropriate for the Planning Commissioners to use Comprehensive Plan policies as review criteria, HOWEVER Chapter 2.3.30.04 “Review Criteria” actually requires that “Requests for Conditional Developments shall be reviewed to ensure consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and any other applicable policies and standards adopted by the City Council.” This specific directive from the development code itself over-rides the applicant's complaint.

Many comments point out numerous problems with the parking lot proposal. Please find below (in three parts) some of the code criteria the proposal is required to meet but does not, and combine this information with numerous people's testimony, and cite these as official reasons, for the record (since the applicant made a stink about this), for denial. Then please determine that the parking lot proposal must be denied as the code criteria have not been met. Thank you.

Part 1. The parking lot does not meet the Pedestrian Oriented Design Standards code.

Both Chapter 2.3.30.04.l “Conditional Development” and Chapter 3.11.60- “General CMU Zones Development Standards” requires compliance with the Pedestrian Oriented Design Standards, meaning this code is important. However, the proposal does not meet this code.

4.10.10.b. Foster human-scale development that emphasizes pedestrian rather than vehicular features.

Finding: The parking lot definitely emphasizes the opposite – vehicular traffic instead of pedestrian. This code is not met.

4.10.10.i. Encourage street activity to support livable neighborhoods and vital commercial areas.

Finding: “Street activity” means pedestrian-enhancing activity, such as outdoor dining tables and chairs, outdoor farmer markets, etc. The mid-block parking lot in the middle of businesses would increase vehicular activity and make walking more dangerous. This code is not met.

4.10.70.04.a Vehicle Circulation and Design Standards – Parking lots. Off-street parking and vehicular circulation must be placed to the rear of buildings. The Applicant may seek and the Director may approve an exception to this standard when the Director finds that parking cannot be located to the rear of the building due to other requirements of this Code or unusual site constraints, both of which are defined in the following paragraph, the amount of parking and vehicle circulation that cannot be accommodated to the rear of the building may be provided only to the side of the building.

Finding: The purpose of this code is to keep parking lots away from the sidewalk, because they have a negative impact on pedestrians. The parking lot is required to be behind a building so the negative impacts are buffered from pedestrians. The code states that when there are “unusual site constraints” such as weak foundation soils, the parking lot may be located on the side of the building, so it is semi-buffered from the sidewalk. However, in this proposal there is a complete absence of a building buffering the parking lot from the sidewalk. This is a gross violation of code. This code is not met.

Part 2. The parking lot does not meet the frontage code.

Page 6 of the Staff Report states: “Per LDC 3.11.60, a minimum 70 percent Frontage Occupation is required in the CMU-3 Zone.” The staff report states that the applicant is using the Frontage Occupation defined in LDC 1.6.30, requiring that 70 percent be occupied by “Private parks or plazas that are legally available to the public, and with minimum dimensions of 20' by 20'.”

Finding: The intent of the private park frontage requirement is to buffer the ugly view of parked cars from people driving by and walking by for at least 70 percent of the parking lot's length along the sidewalk and street. No matter if the length of the parking lot is small (for example, only 50 feet, which would require a 35 foot long buffer), the code requires a minimum buffer of at least 20 feet by 20 feet along the sidewalk. Looking at the math, it is clear the code requires the length of the buffer along the sidewalk to be at least 20 feet long and at least 20 feet deep. Not a weird “L” shape as proposed by the applicant. There is no other logical explanation that works out geometrically and mathematically. However, page 8 of the staff report shows the applicant is proposing the majority of the buffer to be only 10 feet wide.

The landscaped buffer is required to be along 70 percent of the frontage, which equals 58.1 feet. It is true the proposal offers a length of 71 feet, which is 85.5 percent. However, because the applicant is shirking the 20 foot depth requirement, the landscaped buffer as proposed would be only 710 square feet instead of 1,162 square feet, a reduction of 452 square feet! The applicant can submit a new plan showing a 20 feet deep buffer, as required by code, or the Planning Commission can deny this application. This code is not met.

Part 3. The parking lot does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Chapter 2.3.30.04 Review Criteria requires that “Requests for Conditional Developments shall be reviewed to ensure consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and any other applicable policies and standards adopted by the City Council.”

3.2.1 The desired land use pattern within the Corvallis Urban Growth Boundary will emphasize:

B. Efficient use of land;

D. Compact urban form;

Finding: The proposal is to demolish a two-story business and replace it with a single-level parking lot. This is not an “efficient use of land” nor a “compact urban form.” If Marriott Hotel wanted more parking, they should have thought of that when they built their huge structure. [Also, do not forget that when the original hotel parking garage was proposed (10+ years ago), the out-of-state owners tried to make Corvallis tax payers foot the bill (millions of dollars), and only the outrage of the community stopped the atrocity.] The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The code is not met.

8.10.2 Given the community's intention to prevent decline in existing commercial areas, the City shall explore opportunities to facilitate and assist in the redevelopment of existing commercial areas, in a manner that meets current standards.

Finding: This is an “existing commercial area” and the City is directed to “assist” in “preventing decline.” However, allowing the demolition of a two-story commercial building and replacing it with a single-level parking lot would cause the commercial area to decline. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The code is not met.

8.10.12 Land Development Code standards are established for developments to require that areas of sites set aside for surface parking lots are minimized and vehicle parking is encouraged in underground or structured parking facilities to provide for an efficient use of land.

Finding: If the Marriott Hotel wanted more parking, they should have created more parking when they built the huge structure. Their failure to plan well does not mean they get to violate code by using land inefficiently with surface parking instead of underground or multi-level parking. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The code is not met.

The violations of code sections listed above indicate the Conditional Development must be denied. Please deny this Conditional Development for a parking lot. Thank you for your time.

"The smallest good deed is better than the grandest good intention."