NOTES ON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 12/4/02

AGENDA ITEM 7, STUDY SESSION ON DRAFT BIG BOX AMENDMENT


Rob Tomlinson:
	history of BBSC work, ack and thks, etc.

	cover letter to follow, signed, one hopes, by all on BBSC:
		* comments on all-site application
			staff against
			committee in favor:
				all-site reflects amplification of level 
				of activity due to LRE at site

		* comments on elimination of food sales restriction
			effect of inclusion of food sales not quantifiable
			but concerns remain



Jim Maurer:
	power point presentation of principal points of draft
	amendment:
		good summary, on pc web site

	interesting number:
		~50 sites of >= 10 acres that fit site requirements for
		permitted use or type IV admin procedure; 
		this number is a lower limit




Questions from commissioners and responses from Rob T., Mike McCrory,
etc.:

Thompson: requested staff respond to several questions:

1	evidence for 
1a		impact 150 kft2 LRE > (90 kft2 anchor + 60 kft2 other retail)

1b		basis for all-site application

1c		technical basis for discrimination LRE vs non-LRE
			product mix == food sales restriction
			(misunderstanding/misreading of draft)

2	basis for 500/400/300/200/125 ft setbacks
		cite other codes, information sources, ...

3	500' limit allows only 40 sites (or whatever)
			(misunderstanding/misreading of draft)

Rob T.: response to 1a/1b:
	Oates testimony:
		LRE has > traffic/activity == > efficiency in use of space

Thompson: comment on 1a/1b:
	Oates has given him other data, with opposite conclusion

Rob T.: response to 3:
	number of qualifying sites cannot be determined, as sites can
	be created/expanded from neighboring residential 
	(i.e., >> 40-50 sites)

Thompson: comment on 3:
	500' limit blocks all BB? those to be in dense residential areas?

Jim M.: response to 3:
	clarification and general comments about siting and type V procedure
		BB not blocked

Mike M.: response to 3:
	along same line - 

[Thompson: comment after appearing to understand responses to 3, including
mechanism for relaxation of standards:
	".. so that means we can get away with ..[um].. accomodate .."]


Chair: requests industry reps to comment on siting requirements/site numbers
	at the hearing


Colton: requests clarification from staff:

	basis of setbacks and buffers

	noise abatement:
		imprecise language in relation of impulse noise to dBA limits


Thompson: followup
	hits on setbacks

	hits on noise abatement


Several Commissioners:
	revise language at time of hearing

	may need two meetings to complete revision/etc.



SUMMARY

Questions raised by one or more Commissioners, with comments on
possible response:

	structure of draft:
		lower two tiers of approval procedure, for sites not
		adjacent to residential/hisoric:
			minimal mitigation
			expedited approval

		highest tier, for sites near reidential/historic:
			restrictive standards 
			but adaptable to requirements of specific site
			redevelopment allowed/encouraged

		draft is a compromise that secures features judged
		most important for each principal affected group

	siting - two categories, congruent with tiers of approval procedure:
		not near residential/historic
			permitted use/type IV admin approval procedures
			essentially non-restrictive standards

		near residential/historic
			type V admin approval procedure
			restrictive standards but adaptable

	setbacks:
		why important for nhoods, including all-site application
			primary mitigation of visual impacts:
				scale and mass, etc.
			fallback for mitigation of use impacts:
				noise, light, etc.

		basis for setting values in ordinance:
			what would appear reasonable to an impartial
			Tucson observer

			greater than threshold for neighbor revolt and
			less than threshold for developer revolt, when
			consider the standards in concert with the
			mechanism for relaxation

			setbacks in other ordinances:
				wide range
				vary with local expectations

			high activity associated with LRE, propagated
			throughout site
				evidence anecdotal but real in its effect
				e.g., anchor stores seen as required for
				successful mall


	impact of LRE greater than equivalent collection of non-LRE stores:
		economics of LRE is high volume, low cost
		

	noise abatement - clarify language:
		impulse/single-tone noise