Colvest Group Looks to Develop Another Starbucks in Springfield
Posted on Monday, August 20 2007 by Heather Brandon
In a move that again appears to disregard Springfield’s developing, revised zoning ordinance and a similar new overlay district that helps to define the “street edge” and increase pedestrian safety and sidewalk use, the Windsor-based Colvest Group appears before the City Council tonight with a proposal for a Starbucks, a bank, and other retail at the burgeoning intersection of Parker Street and Wilbraham Road in Sixteen Acres.
The small plaza in question is owned by Colvest, as reported in today’s Republican, and in recent years has featured a variety of different shops, including a nail salon, a Christian book shop, and a campaign office for Christopher Gabrieli when he ran for governor. The plaza shares the busy intersection with a Mobil gas station, a Pride gas station, another new bank, and a bigger strip mall plaza with a number of retailers. Just down the street is the still new Fresh Acres, owned by Big Y and vacant for several years prior to its redevelopment. Just to the north is the neighborhood’s library branch and a long-closed but now renovated and functional community center, along with a few retail shops and restaurants tucked way in the back of an ocean of parking lot.
Traffic at the intersection would appear to be increasing, and the strip mall signage has been taking off as well. Near the city’s border with Wilbraham, it’s not hard to guess why this location would seem ripe for a Starbucks, especially if it can accommodate a drive-through: and that’s why the matter must go before the City Council tonight for a special permit.
The City Council has evidently requested in the past that if possible, all matters relating to a special permit be resolved prior to a hearing. In this case, a required traffic study is still underway, under the supervision of the Department of Public Works, to examine the impact of such a developed plaza for the intersection. Without the results of that study in hand, how can the City Council be expected to make an informed decision on the special permit request?
My suspicion is that it can’t, but the Colvest Group’s experience gaining access to special permits in the past—based on persuasion that reminds me of an exchange that might take place in a battered spousal relationship—would indicate that readiness may not matter; instead, the city should just be grateful to get another Starbucks. (It currently has one, on East Columbus Avenue near I-91 in the South End, also a Colvest project.)
Last November, regarding a CVS on State Street, Frank Colaccino of Colvest went before the City Council on a special permit request, and said, “You’ve gotta balance your concerns with development. In the city of Springfield, I don’t see a whole lot of retail development going on. It’s nice to have all these wants, and I understand. But they’ve gotta be balanced with the tenants that come to this area.” Making matters more outrageous, Colaccino has a seat on the citizen advisory committee that has been reviewing drafts of the city’s new zoning ordinance for over a year now (that project has been delayed, and is expected to be available for public review this fall). His point of view in November was that tenants want their parking out front, pedestrians and crazy ideas about “street edge” be damned.
Indeed that is what the Starbucks proposal includes: plenty of parking near the street, with the retail area set back. As the staff of the city’s Office of Planning and Economic Development notes in its analysis (PDF) of the special permit request, “[T]he existing structure has significant street frontage along Parker Street, which provides direct pedestrian access to this neighborhood commercial center. The staff strongly believes that this type of traditional urban design, with buildings at the street line, encourages and promotes pedestrian activity while enhancing the vibrancy of these unique neighborhood commercial districts. It should be noted that the plan submitted has no accommodations for pedestrian access. This type of ’suburban’ design, with the building set back and parking in front, is inappropriate for Springfield, specifically within these neighborhood commercial districts.”
The analysis recommends that Colvest “be required to revise the proposed plan to move the buildings up to the street line,” which has been accomplished in other communities and will still allow drive-through service and adequate parking. The planning staff requests that the City Council table this particular request, in order to have a chance to meet with the developer and review all the issues at stake. However, the staff analysis also provides a lengthy list of suggested conditions should the City Council choose to pass the special permit anyway.
Paul Sheehan AIA
August 20th, 2007 at 6:51 pmThe most ludicrous thing about their site plan is the 2 HC ramps at the corner, which take you to… shrubs lining the parking lot.
Not sure why they can’t develop the site as they have done elsewhere as your previous entry concerning the Colvest Group shows. Pushing the buildings to the street would not only simplify the interior site circulation but eliminate one of the two curb cuts on Parker St. Having the buildings up against at least one sidewalk line seems a small thing to ask. They’ll save on shrub costs too.
Sheila McElwaine
August 20th, 2007 at 11:18 pmAt city council tonight, councilors voted to hold off a decsion on this matter until their September 10 meeting to give the petitioner time to go back to the Sixteen Acres Civic Association and address concerns they had expressed at earlier meetings.
A residential abutter also expressed doubts about the adequacy of buffers between his property and the Starbucks drive through. Phil Dromey of the planning department also made a strong plea for placing storefronts rather than parking at the front of the property on the street, passing around photos taken by a citizen of a commercial district in Florence MA as examples of a more appropriate configuration.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
August 21st, 2007 at 9:35 amThanks for the update, Sheila. What a relief that the matter was tabled to go to committee for further discussion.
Paul, you’d think the developer would be interested in saving on shrub costs, wouldn’t you? I agree, those HC ramps don’t appear very accommodating, but then neither does the rest of the site plan.
Just the thought of going through the bank drive-through window, and then needing to go south on Parker Street - potentially competing with a full parking lot and the ins and outs of that, traffic entering the lot from Parker in not just one but two places, traffic exiting the Starbucks drive-through, people doing the inevitable U-turn thing through the lot, and God forbid, people just walking - is enough to cause cerebral fender-benders.
The existing building’s footprint is visible on the site plan. It leaves a lot to be desired, literally and figuratively, at the very corner along Wilbraham Road (currently used for parking, and it looks ugly), but along Parker it seems like a good thing to welcome the existence of the sidewalk. As long as the developer is razing the site completely, why not do it right, and comply with best practices (pedestrian and vehicular friendly) as well as the city’s effort to make a better urban space?
Sometimes I wonder if it’s about a developer not wanting to pay someone to draw up a new site plan, but I recognize that it’s also about having to come back to potential tenants and tell them you didn’t necessarily do it all correctly from the get-go. Here’s a community you were supposed to know, a place you’ve worked with before successfully with little effort. And now you’re being told what to do. What a pain. It’s a culture shift.
In other communities they may get what they want and what their experts advise in part because they demand it. Yes the developer may well complain and yes it may take some pressure and a willingness to walk away from the offer. That’s negotiation.
Jim Brock
August 31st, 2007 at 2:39 amHas anyone noticed the fact that there are only 44 parking spaces…3 of them handicapped?
Any bank has at least 7 employees at all times…add another 7 for Starbucks …a minimum of 3 employees to the other 3 retail spaces and you are left with only 18 spaces for actual customers(divided by 5 businesses) If 4 people want to meet for a cup o’ joe, they may want to rent a van….
There is too much going on in such a small space!
After spending a million and a half dollars-they STILL didn’t get enough property!
I actually wish this had become a CVS-the Wilbraham store would have been the requisite…18 full size trees and a nursery-full of plantings….
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
September 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pmI discovered Natasha Clark’s account in the Reminder of the early August meeting on this subject between Colvest representatives and the civic association. It reports that the development would allow for 42 parking spaces, not 44, but who’s counting? As Frank Colaccino is quoted as saying during the meeting, “I don’t care what you do, you’re not going to make it 100 percent of what everybody wants. We have a history of putting things together and they do look nice.” Laws, schmlaws, ordinances, schmordinances.
The City Council had planned follow-up at their September 10 meeting. Does anyone know if it reached the agenda?
Urban Compass | Blog Archive | Campaign 2007: Springfield City Council Candidate Bruce Stebbins http://urbancompass.net/?p=642
September 25th, 2007 at 10:35 am[...] example, a national chain may come into town and propose its typical building, sign, and parking layout that it uses in every community. However, this [...]
Jim Brock
April 28th, 2009 at 11:44 amLatest update….I understand it WILL be a CVS, therefore the Wilbraham and Suffield (right down the street from Frank…) can be the model for the 16 Acres store. Lots of landscaping, and closed at 10.
Lets hope for ONE drive thru…