PLANNING COMMISSION BIG BOX REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES
Comprehensive Planning Task Force Conference Room
MacArthur Building, 345 East Toole Avenue, 3rd Floor
October 8, 2002
Members: Rob Tomlinson; Joyce Joosten; Grace Evans; and Thomas Sayler-Brown
Staff: James Maurer and Kathy Buchanan, Comprehensive Planning Task Force; Michael McCrory, City Attorney's Office
Interested Parties: Connie Diamos; Uwe Fink; John Rupley; Ila Rupley; Chris Tanz; and Frank Bangs
1. Call to Order: Mr. Tomlinson, the Subcommittee Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
2. Minutes for Approval:
Discussion: Mr. Maurer stated he wanted to clarify one item in the minutes, which appeared in the first paragraph on page 2. He said that, although the minutes reflect that he would incorporate the phrase "be an integral part of" under Sec. 3.a.1, Structures, his intent was actually to add it to Sec. 22.214.171.124.C.A.4, Buffers and Landscaping. Ms. Joosten added that, although the minutes state the Subcommittee had determined a capped wall was preferable to a wall with a roof, she would like the minutes to reflect that either a capped wall or a wall with a roof connecting it to the building was equally acceptable to the Subcommittee. Ms. Evans stated she believed the minutes referred to a capped wall being preferred for building setbacks. Ms. Evans moved that the minutes of the October 1, 2002, meeting be approved per the two revisions discussed; Ms. Joosten seconded the motion; and it carried on voice vote (4:0).
3. Discussion of Large Retail Establishments Ordinance:
Mr. Maurer requested that the Subcommittee look at revised wording he had prepared for the introductory paragraph to Sec. 126.96.36.199.C. Ms. Evans questioned the use of the phrase " . . . a special individual reason . . . ." After a brief discussion, Ms. Evans moved to replace this phrase with the word "circumstances"; Mr. Sayler-Brown seconded the motion; and the motion carried on voice vote (4:0).
Thus, it would read:
188.8.131.52.C Large Retail Establishments - Type V Administrative Special Exception Land Use. Large Retail Establishments are subject to the following performance criteria. If one or more of the criteria cannot be met, the applicant may apply for a Special Exception Land Use process to be reviewed by the Zoning Examiner. The Zoning Examiner may grant modifications through this process for individual cases. The Zoning Examiner shall first determine that circumstances make the strict compliance with the provisions of this Section impractical and that the modification requested, in conjunction with proposed mitigation measures for other performance criteria, is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this Code. The Zoning Examiner shall also determine that such modification to any performance criteria shall not create any undue hardship on adjacent or nearby residential development.
The Subcommittee then moved to Sec. 184.108.40.206.C.A.3.a.3, Outdoor Sales Display/Ancillary Uses Associated With a Large Retail Structure, Including Seasonal and Outdoor Temporary Display. Discussion then ensued on what uses constitute ancillary uses. It was determined that a gas station that is part of a Large Retail Establishment is an ancillary use to the Large Retail Establishment with which it is associated. Ms. Evans suggested splitting this paragraph up. She stated one category could be "seasonal and outdoor temporary display," which could encroach into the setback, and the other category could be accessory uses, which would include things like outdoor eating areas and gas stations associated with a big box.
Mr. Maurer questioned having a separate distinction for ancillary uses if there are no real distinctions between those uses and the principal use. Mr. McCrory agreed. A short discussion ensued on the differences in the C-1 and C-2 zones, including the fact that outdoor displays are not permitted in the C-1 zone. After continued discussion, Mr. Bangs suggested that "ancillary" be struck from this paragraph. Ms. Evans moved that the word "ancillary" be removed from this paragraph and the word "including" be changed to "and." Mr. Sayler-Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried on voice vote (4:0).
3. Outdoor Sales Display Uses Associated With a Large Retail Structure and Seasonal and Outdoor Temporary Display. In all zones, for outdoor sales display uses associated with a Large Retail Structure and seasonal and outdoor temporary display, there shall be a setback of two hundred fifty (250) feet from residentially zoned or residentially developed property, other than residentially zoned property that is dedicated right-of-way, unless a building is located between the activity and the adjacent property.
The Subcommittee next considered whether or not the 250' specified in subsection .3 was appropriate. Ms. Joosten stated she felt it took 50' to sell pumpkins and Christmas trees; therefore, she suggested adding 50' to the setbacks established for the structures (300' in the C-2, C-3, and MU zones and 200' in the OCR-1, OCR-2, I-1, and I-2 zones) making them 350' and 250', respectively, for outdoor displays. Ms. Joosten moved this be approved. Mr. McCrory suggested stating it be 50' from the building setback. Mr. Tomlinson added it would be "50' greater than the building setback." Ms. Joosten agreed to this wording; Ms. Evans seconded the motion; and the motion carried on voice vote (4:0).
3. Outdoor Sales Display Uses Associated With a Large Retail Structure and Seasonal and Outdoor Temporary Display. In all zones, for outdoor sales display uses associated with a Large Retail Structure, including seasonal and outdoor temporary display, the setback shall be fifty (50) feet greater than the required building setback from residentially zoned or residentially developed property, other than residentially zoned property that is dedicated right-of-way, unless a building is located between the activity and the adjacent property.
The Subcommittee discussion then moved to Sec. 220.127.116.11.C.A.3.b, Other Than Large Retail Establishments, Located on a Site Containing a Large Retail Establishment. Ms. Joosten pointed out the inconsistencies in the existing ordinance concerning whether it applies to the big box only or to the entire site. She suggested that there should be significant setbacks on the site and stated that perhaps only uses such as offices might be appropriate between the big box and the residential uses. A short discussion ensued on what uses are allowed in the C-1 zone. Mr. Tomlinson stated that a compromise might be allowing commercial and office uses of a low enough intensity, such as C-1 and lower, in the buffer to provide buffering to the surrounding neighborhood, and uses such as those allowed in C-2 and greater would be required to have at least the same setbacks as the Large Retail Establishment. Ms. Joosten said her preference would be that C-1 not be allowed but a step below C-1 be considered instead. Mr. Sayler-Brown said he felt there would be a lot of difficulty with this approach, because developers of retail buildings located behind a big box would lose their arterial view. He said this did not seem like something developers would feel was economically feasible.
Mr. Maurer asked the Subcommittee members whether or not they still felt the draft amendment could be taken to the Planning Commission for Study Session on November 6. He stated that this would leave two meetings in which to complete the draft. The Subcommittee members indicated it was still their intent to try to meet this time frame.
4. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 15, at 4:00 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of the MacArthur Building, 345 East Toole Avenue.
5. Adjournment: 6:10 p.m.