NOTES ON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 1/8/03 AGENDA ITEM 4, HEARING ON DRAFT BIG BOX AMENDMENT Sarah More: Introduction brief history staff recommendation: send amendment to M/C with modification combine by-right and Type IV procedures with recommendation that M/C ask staff to review procedures for all shopping center land uses more history and comment BBSC made major effort to balance interest of all parties major parts: permitted use flexibility in planning no C-1 with existing >100Kft2 [if exits, then would be non-conforming and must write rules...] all-site == all buildings on site are reviewed integrated approach no grocery cap no requirement that M/C be part of review procedure staff responses to PC questions -- passed out thanks to all who participated Rob Tomlinson: brief summary of cover letter primary issues: all site table I innovative food cap no quantitative demonstration that mix impacts within purview of LUC but many persons feel impacts do exist thus lasting concern proposal best compromise that could be reached Lavatty, Chair: thanks and hearing open Paul Rubin, UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers International Union): 10% food cap here for 3 years -- Tucson has not suffered reason PC/BBSC have taken up food cap is WAL-MART memo Frank Bangs to Frank Thompson on Rupley-Bangs revision after this, by 10/29/02, food cap removed removal of food cap is questionable nhood rep (Joyce J.) voted against removal urges: keep 10% cap question whether even should open up ordinance to amendment Uwe Fink (citizen participant in review process): thanks PC/BBSC members that "shadow" committee allowed to participate defends JAR compromise struck -- excellent document not pleasing to all strongly supports draft amendment Ann Murray (citizen participant in review process): appreciates all who worked on process does not give complete endorsement Type III Leg. procedure out, replaced by Type V Admin: citizen has no direct recourse to elected officials [only through appeal process, which goes to M/C] case law for CA to New England how communities react to LRE happy to share information Planning Commissioners comments: White: sees 3 procedures in document -- what is this about 2? Thompson: notes that Special Exception procedures have appeal to M/C also confused about 3/2 procedures reply by Sarah More: suggestion of 3->2 was in the nature of friendly amendment comment by Mike McCrory: only difference of B. and C. procedures is site access can combine without difficulty ok to do this, as change within purview of public notice and therefore legal Thompson: wants document in hand with any such changes before can recommend to M/C Thomas Sayler-Brown (industry rep on BBSC): talked with clients unclear about certain points TSB uncertain also request continuation of hearing so questions can be formulated Mary Beth Savel (LRlaw; Wal-Mart): standing in for Frank B. - who is on vacation 10% cap - remove it because: no evidence presented to justify it during this review process under BBSC at original M/C session where it was added never considered by PC (M/C added it) other aspects of draft: process of compromise Wal-Mart not thrilled about setbacks W-M respects compromise but some issues letter given to P/C--staff with comments [these are principally technical; nothing surprising] Bill DuPont (citizen participant in review process): re 10% cap documents justifying cap presented but never discussed: orange county study wants M/C review (Type III Leg.) against giving up 10% cap immoral to throw union overboard for perceived gain by others Sarah More: response to PC question, on was orange county information provided [not clear] Neighbor of Lowes Limberlost site: Big Box big issue - need to have direct access to M/C member keep Type III Leg. ?? appreciates way developers treated her and nhood prior to submission of plan Joanna Diamos (citizen participant in review process): active as participant owing to El Con hands in copy of study cited by Bill DuPont San Diego, Orange County study opposed to deletion of 10% cap comment on absurdity of plan for el con, considering adjacent three historic districts Joyce Joosten (neighborhood rep on BBSC): 2 ft-high stack of documents believed at first review process would be simple: only to consider all-site and 10% cap process developed a good ordinance Tucson special, a cookie-cutter approach not possible past hodge-podge planning leading to problems proposed amendment something for all slam dunk if no adjacent nhoods clear guidelines if possible problems often JJ felt odd man out, in 5/1 votes concerns in 3 areas: infrastructure: roads not there traffic safety requires them 10% food-beverage: current code does not prohibit amendment has no 10% language proposed during BBSC discussions (but not included): Mike McCrory wording Joyce Joosten wording need language that addresses impact of LRE concerned M/C no oversight/overview ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Commission discussion: Frank Thompson: continue hearing to next PC meeting should address question: Why *HAVE* special criteria for LRE? Rob Tomlinson: clarify which levels combined in 3 -> 2 Rick Lavatty: clarify procedures FLOW DIAGRAM need final proposal in hand Frank Thompson: exclude *VACANT* residential land from top tier protection Andrea Lawrence: Q to Mary Beth S.: what is your list? MBS response: would like clarification of language for: 1. 3->2 2. by-right/Type IV aesthetic stds (all-site or LRE only) 3. outdoor sales displays (front of store?) 4. outdoor storage 5. hours 6. warning beeper if inside building Arlan Colton: all who have need for clarification, submit questions to staff Frank Thompson: comment on Gary Oaks citation of study on Wal-Mart traffic concerned about interactive process in email discussions; may be illegal wrt open meeting law [send comments to staff, who can enter them into public record, and then transmit them]