Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Report on Superstores C~TY ClEIR~ fl~e # DliJ[iJ~o~~ AGIE~DA STATIEMENT C~TY COUNC~l MEIET~NG DATIE December 4,2007 SUBJECT InformatlOnal Report on Superstores Report Prepared by Marme R NUCCIO Senior Planner and JamIe L ROJo, AssIstant Planner ATTACHMENTS 1) August 21,2007 CIty CouncIl Agenda Statement 2) August 21, 2007 CIty CouncIl Meeting Minutes 3) Superstore Research Mdp RECOMMENJ)AnO~lve report and provIde Staff wIth dIrectIon ci(' FINANCIAlL STATEMENT None PROJECT DESCRIPTK ON At the May 1, 2007 City Council meetmg, CouncIlmember SbrantI requested that the City CouncIl consIder a ban on Superstores In excess of 90,000 square feet wIth over 5% non~taxable grocery Items The LIvermore CIty Council adopted a SImIlar ban on March 26,2007 On August 21, 2007 Staff returned to the City CouncIl WIth an mformatIOnal report for consideratIOn of a Superstore Ordinance (see Attachment 1) The City CouncIl directed Staff to look at SItes III the City that have thc potentIal to accommodate Superstore development and come back With a report before decIdmg whether to proceed WIth an Ordmance (see mInutes of meetmg In Attachment 2) The term Superstore refers to retail establishments WhICh sell general retail merchandise along With full service grocery sales Many large scale retailers are Increasmgly addmg to theIr general merchandise sales the sale of grocery Items, what dIstmgUlshes a Superstore from a large scale retmler IS the full grocery sales component An average large scale general merchandise retaIler IS between 125,000 and 145,000 square feet on 10-12 acres of land With approxlmately 6-12% non-taxable grocery Items An average Superstore IS 175,000 square feet or larger on 17 or more acres of land WIth 15-30% non- taxable grocery Items ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO ApplIcant FIle Page 1 of 5 fJrJEM NO 1"~ G IAgendas\2007\12 4 07 Supers/ores CCSR doc ANALYSIS The CIty CouncIl's directIon was for Staff to evaluate the SItes III the City that havc the potenttal to accommodate Superstore development Staff looked at undeveloped land 10 Dubhn deSignated for General CommercIal land uses Staff also looked at the Downtown core area 10 the Pnmary Plannmg Area The Pnmary Planmng Area land use deslgnatlOn of Retat1/0ffice allows shoppmg centers, however, the bUildIng configuratIOn of the core area and current successful operatIons make thIS an unhkely arca for conversion to a Superstore, so thIS area will not be dIscussed further Thc Dub1m General Plan land use deslgnatlOn of General Commercial allows for a range of reglOna1 and commumty serv10g retaIl uses mcludmg supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores and hIgh-volume retatl such as dIscount centers, home Improvement centers and furnIture outlets, to name a few The General Plan also sets forth a development standard known as Floor to Area RatIo (FAR) to establish a mmImum and maximum development potential for General CommercIal land uses The mmlmum FAR IS 0 20 and the maxImum FAR IS 0 60 Table I below IdentIfies the development potentIal for land of a vanety of acreages UtIlIzmg the maxlmum permitted Floor Area RatiO (FAR) for General CommercIal deSignated propertIes of 0 60, a 10 acre SIte could develop WIth 261,360 square feet of bUlldmg As thIS smgle story bUlldmg would cover 6 of the 10 acres, the remammg 4 acres of land would have to accommodate all park10g and assocIated landscapmg Parkmg IS gcnerally calculatcd at 1 parkmg stall for each 300 square fcct ofbUlldmg area A 261,360 square foot general commercIal bUlld10g would reqUire 871 parkmg stalls Each parkmg stall utIlIzes approximately 300 square feet of latld area when the stall Itself, atsle width/per stall and landscapmg are mcluded The reqUITed land area needed to accommodate 871 parkmg stalls would be 5 99 acres, well m excess of the remamIllg 4 acres Either the bUIldmg would be forced to go to 2 stones to accommodate surface parkmg (not lIkely as most retaIlers of super store development prefer SIngle story faCIlities) or a parkmg structure sIzed to accept 289 of the reqUired 871 parkmg stalls would be needed Th1s 1S WIthout site 1andscapmg 'f bl 1 ][) JP lB d lFl A R a e eve opment oten tl3 ase on oor rea atIo Acres Square Footage Minimum Square lFootage MaXimum GC FAR. 20 GC :IF AR 60 10 87,120 261,360 14 121,968 365,904 18 156,816 470,448 General Commercwl Development Sttes Only vacant, undeveloped propertIes were analyzed because they are the only sltes avatlable for ImmedIate development Pour areas deSignated for General CommercIal land uses WhICh are currently undeveloped have been IdentIfied as havmg the potenttal to accommodate a Superstore 1) L10 property- portlOn of Area C, 2) Dub1m Land Company (DIManto), 3) Robert Chen property (Fallon VIllage), and 4) Emerald Place (formerly Commerce OneIIKEA) Lm Property - Area C ThIS property IS located west of Pall on Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Dublm Boulevard to the north The s1te 1S approxImately 34 net acres In SIze (see Attachment 3) and IS deslgnated as General CommercIal m thc General Plan and Eastern DublIn SpeCific Plan The property IS owned by Chang Su- O- Lm Page 2 of 5 Permitted uses on the Generdl CommercIal site mc1udc commumty servillg retaIl uses such as general merchandIse stores, dIscount warehouse retail stores, and home Improvement stores (to name a few) and regIOnally onented, hIgh volume, retatl uses such as but not limited to, dIscount centers, home Improvement centers and factory stores Development which IS conSistent With the ZOnIng ofthe property, as adopted ill the November 1997 Development Plan, would not be subject to further zomng approvals but would reqUire Site Development ReVIew approval and a development dgreement Based on apphcable zonmg and the SILe of the property a Superstore development could be feasible Dublm Land Company Property (DIManto) The Dubhn Land Company site IS approxImately 76 acres m Size, of whIch approxImately 60 acres are currently desIgndted General CommercIal III the General Plan and Eastern DublIn Specific Plan The entire SIte IS generally located east of TassaJara Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Gleason Dnve to the north (see Attachment 3) The Site IS governed by the 1994 pre-zomng of the Dubhn Ranch area whIch established a Planned Development ZOnIng DIstnct (P A 94-030) for the SIte (Ordmance 11-94 and ResolutIOn 104-94) The regulations and standards for development of the Dublm Land Company property mcludmg land use and mtenslty of land use are subject to the adoptIon of future development plans, no development other than that allowed under the mtenm Agncultural desIgnatlOn IS allowed untIl such time that a Development Plan IS approved A General Plan Amendment Study was IllItIated for the site m March 2003 to study consolIdatmg General Commercial land uses on the SItes between Interstate 580 and Central Parkway and placmg hIgh denSity residential land uses on the SIte betwccn Central Parkway and Gleason Dnve At thIS tIme, the apphcatIon IS not actively bemg pursued and a Development Plan has not been submItted [or reVIew for the site The Dublin Land property IS currently segmented by roadways mto 5 non-contiguous potentIal development sites The 3 Sites closest to 1-580 could accommodate General Commercial development dnd total 524 acres The smallest SIte, WhIch fronts both TassaJara Road and NorthsIde Dnve, IS only 1 219 acres and could not dccommodate a Superstore The site between Dublm Boulevard and Northslde Dnve IS approxImately 20 906 acres and utllIzmg the maximum FAR of 0 60 could be developed WIth a bmldmg or a senes of bUIldmgs totahng 546,400 square feet Assummg parkmg could be met WIth a combmatIOn of surface and structured parkmg, Superstore development could be feaSible The largest property, the area located between DublIn Boulevard and Central Parkway IS 30264 acres m SIze Agam, utIhzmg the maxImum FAR of 0 60 as allowed by the General Plan, thIS portlOTI of the Dublm Land property could be developed With a bmldmg or bUI1dmgs of 790,980 ~quare feet Parkmg would have to be met by utllizmg a senes of structured and surface parkmg Superstore development on thIS portIOn ofthe property could be feaSIble It should be noted, however, that the Eastern Dublm SpeCIfic Plan (EDSP) addresses maximum commercIal development on Dublin Land Company property at 846,153 square feet of General CommercIal development plus an additional 56,410 square feet of Neighborhood CommercIal Land uses for a total development potential of 902,563 square feet The EDSP references development on the Dublm Land property of between 25 and 35 FAR WIth addItIonal analysIs, studies and envIronmental reVIew, It mIght be pOSSIble to exceed the 902,563 square feet referenced 10 the EDSP In any case, development potential of 902,563 square feet IS enough to allow development of a Superstore The development of a Superstore on the Dubhn Land Company site would reqUIre the adoptlon of a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan (Planned Development 200m g) as well as SIte Development ReVIew approval and a Development Agreement Page 3 of 5 Robert Chen Property The Chen property IS approximately 72 acres and IS located east of Fallon Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Dublin Boulevard to the north (see Attachment 3) The site IS deSIgnated m the Gcnera1 Plan and Eastern Dubhn Specific Plan as General Commercial An addItIonal 18 5 acres to the east IS deSIgnated General CommercIal/Campus Office The General CommercIal/Campus Office deSignatIOn allows the same types of uses but bmIts General CommercIal uses to 70% and Campus Office uses to 30% (for traffic Impact purposes) ThIS SIte IS part of the overall Fallon Village project area and a Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted III December 2005 The Development Plan allows, as a permitted use, reglOnally onented, hIgh volume retaIl uses mcludIllg dIscount centers, home Improvement centers and other SimIlar uses The Development Plan also mcludes specific development standards, performance standards and findmgs which must be met at the tIme of Stage 2 Development Plan proposals, for projects greater than 15 acres III SIze, development standards can be modified through the Stage 2 Development Plan process The development of a Superstore on the Chen property would reqUire the adoptIOn of a Stage 2 Development Plan whIch IS reqUired to be conSIstent WIth the findIllgs mcluded III the adopted Stage 1 Development Plan These findmgs among other thmgs reqUlre that the SIze, scale and Intensity of the proposed development do not conflict With the character of the dIstnCt and adjacent land uses Based on the SIze ofthe property a Superstore development could be feasible Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Ventures Property The Blake Hunt Ventures site IS approxImately 28 acres and IS located west of HaCienda Dnve and east of Arnold Road between Interstate 580 to the south and MartInelli Way to the north (see Attachment 3) The SIte has a General Plan and Eastern Dublm Specific Plan land use deSignatIon of General CommercIal The property owner, Blake Hunt Ventures, has an actIve pl.mnmg applIcatIOn In process for the development of the SIte A Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted by the Clty CounCIl In November 2007 and allows for general commerclalland uses, specIfic development standards were also adopted In a Stage 1 Site Plan whIch depIctS multiple freestandmg bUIldmgs rangmg from 10,000 square feet to 65,000 square feet 10 SIze Blake Hunt Ventures IS actIvely mOVIng forward With an applIcatIon for a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development ReView for theIr project The development of a Superstore on the Blake Hunt Ventures SIte IS hIghly unlIkely consldenng that a planmng applicatIOn IS currently In process for development of the site and a Stage 1 SIte Plan has been adopted whIch IS not conducIve for the development of a Superstore If a Superstore were to be proposed for the SIte, an amendment to the Planned Development Zomng DIstnct Stage 1 Development Plan would be reqUired as well as the adoptIOn of a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development ReVIew EnVironmental Review Most, Ifnot all, of the potentIal development SItes for a Superstore would reqUIre a dIscretIonary approval, and related environmental reVIew Consistent WIth the CIty's practIce, Staff would examme the extent to whIch any proposed Superstore would raIse environmental Issues not already addressed In pnor CEQA reVIews for the SIte Page 4 of 5 CONCLUSION Below IS a summary of the entitlements WhICh would need to be securcd for the development of a Superstore on the Lm property, the Dublm Land Company property, the Robert Chen property, the Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Ventures property Pro ertv LIll Property - Area C DublIn Land Company Entitlements Needed o SIte Deve10 rnent RevIew and Develo rnent Arcement o Planned Development Zoning mcludmg a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan o SIte Develo ment Review and Develo ment A reement o Planned Development ZOnIng mcludIllg a Stage 2 Development Plan o SIte DeveIo ment Review and Develo ment A eement o Amended Planned Development Zomng Illcludmg a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan o Site Develo ment Review dlld Develo ment A ecment Robert Chen Emcrald P1aceIBlake Hunt Venturcs Based on an evaluatIOn of eXlstmg sites that arc vacant and undeveloped wIth land use desIgnatIOns of General Commercial, the opportumty for Superstore development IS limited wlthm the commumty There are vaflOUS dlscretlOnary approvals that are necessary from the Plannmg ComnllSSlon and/or City Council for the development of a Superstore Superstore uses appear to be permitted under the General CommercIal Land Use DesIgnation and therefore would not be able to be demed based solely on use DiscretIonary review would address sIte desIgn and development standards, for Instance bmldmg configuratIOn, parkmg, landscapmg, mternal circulatIOn and so on CEQA reVIew would also be reqUired RECOMMENDATION Receive report and provide Stdffwlth directIon Page 5 of5 \ 111-. H C~lV Cl[ElRrt{-U fl~e # D~[f][Q]=[Z]~ AGIE~DA STAl'IEMIE~1r C~TY COUNC~l MlElEll~G IDATIE AlLRglLRsft 21, 2001 SVBJ1JECT ConsIderatIOn of Superstore Ordmance Report Prepared by Chnstopher L Foss Economlc Development Dlrector A 1'1' AClHlMlEN1'8 1 City of Livermore Superstore Ordmance RECOMMENIDAT:U:ON /J A,p( ConsIder Counctl Member Sbrantl's request to evaluate the need for /.J}\J' a superstore ordmance and provide Staff With the appropnate directIOn IF:u:NANC:U:AL 81' A 1'EMlENl' DirectIon to research and prepare such an ordmance would reqwre approximately 25 hours from the CIty Attorney's Office and 80 hours from the Commwuty Development Department DlESCRJIPl':U:ON On March 26, 2007, the Livermore City CouncIl unarnmous1y approved a General Zomng Code Text Amendment 07-371 prohtbItmg superstores (see Livermore Ordmance - Attachment 1) The adopted Livermore ordmance defines a "superstore" as a store that typically offers dIverse products (general merchandIse) and customer services, centralized cashtenng, and a full service grocery store under the same roof that shares entrances and eXits A "superstore" IS further defmed to exceed 90,000 square feet of gross floor area and devotes at lease five percent (5%) of the total sales floor area to the sale of non- taxable merchandIse The defimtlon exempts dISCOunt club stores (ex Costco) where shoppers pay a membersmp fee III order to take advantage of the dIscounted pnces At the May 1, 2007 City CouncIl meetmg, CounCIl Member Sbrantl requested that the CIty Council consIder a ban, sundar to the City of Livermore, on superstores III excess of 90,000 square feet, With over 5% non-taxable grocery Items A 1arge.scale discount superstore typically combmes discount general merchandise and a full-servIce grocery under one roof The average superstore 15 between 150,000 s f to 200,000 s f Staff has found that a number of other JUrIsdIctions have enacted superstore prohIbItions mcludmg the cIties of Santa Mana, Arroyo Grande, San LUIS ObISpo, San FranCISCo, Oakland, Turlock, Martmez as well as Contra Costa County The prolubl1lOns generally limIt superstores to no more than 10% of their gross floor area dedIcated to non-taxable grocery Items ____~RM________________~._____________~_______________________~______________________________________________ cop\, TO Page 1 of2 G \Ch1l5 \5 uperstore\Agenda Statemen I August 7 2007 doc /2--y.-Or 7 a. A 'fl' A C IHlMENl' 1 Staff has completed no additIonal research to date on the concept of prohlbItmg superstores m Dubhn IftfJ I , the CIty CouncIl were to dIrect Staff to work on tlus Item, Staff could look mto, among other thmgs o A deftnltIon of large format (bIg box) retaIl stores and dIfferentIate the vanous subcategones (dIscount stores, dIscount superstores, and discount club stores) o RegulatIon of floor space devoted to non-taxable Items o ExemptIon of dIscount membershtp stores o ReqUIrement to prepare an economIC Impact analysiS for stores 100,000 s f and larger o ProhtbItIon of superstores over a certam SIZe WIth a percentage of gross floor area dedIcated to non-taxable grocery Items Staff estImates that, If so dIrected, It would take 2S hours of tIme from the CIty Attorney's Office and 80 hours of Staff tune from Commumty Development Department to complete the research and prepare the reports and related ordmance( s) RlECOMMENlDIA l'KON Staff recommends that the CIty CouncIl conSIder CouncIl Member SbrantI's request to evaluate the need for a superstore ordmance and proVide Staff WIth the appropnate drrectIon c2~c2 ( 86{)1 \ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVERMORE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY A.MENDING PART 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) CHAPTER 1-10 (DEFINITIONS), PA.RT 2 (ZONING DISTRICTS) CHAPTER 2-76 (PO-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) SECTION 2-76- 100 (REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PO lONES), AND PART 3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS), CHAPTER 3-10 (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) The City Council of the City of Livermore does ordain as follows Chapter 1-10, DefinItIons - IS amended to read as foJ/ows 1-10-597 Superstore 'Superstore" means a store that typIcally offers diverse products and customer services centralized cashlenng and a full servIce grocery store under the same roof that shares entrances and eXits Such stores exceed nmety thousand (90,000) square feet of gross floor area and devote at least five (5%) percent of the total sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise "Sales floor area means only Intenor bUilding space devoted to the sale of merchandise, and does not Include restrooms office space, storage space automobile servIce areas, or open-aIr garden sales space "Non-taxable merchandise' means products, commodities, or Items the sale of whIch IS not subject to California State sales tax These stores are often the only ones on the site but they can also be found In mutual operation With a related or unrelated garden center or service station Superstores are also sometImes found as separate parcels Within a retail complex With their own dedicated parking area The superstore definition does not mclude a I discount club store, where shoppers pay a membershIp fee In order to take advantage of dIscounted pnces on a WIde vanety of Items such as food. clothing, tires and appliances, and many Items are sold In large quantities or bulk Chapter 2-76, Planned Development Dlstnct - IS amended to read as follows 2-76-100(B)(7)(a) Superstores as defined In LPZC 1-10-597 are prohibited 2-76-1 OO(C)(8)(a)(1) Superstores as defined In LPZC 1-10-597 are prohibited Chapter 3-10, Spec/al ProVISIons - /s amended to read as follows 3-10-370 Superstores ORDINANCE _ 4~ \\ Superstores, as deflnea In lPZC 1-10.597, are prohibIted In all zoning dlstncts The foregomg ordinance was Introduced by tile followmg vote at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of ,2007 AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCI LMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the CIty CouncIl held on , 2007, by the follOWIng vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCI LMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS MAYOR, CITY OF LIVERMORE ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY CLERK ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO o o .5 6() II Consullell"Shon of SunlPell"store Oll"dlmsllIlce 9 50 p m 86 (420-20) EconomIC Development DIrector ChrIS Foss presented the Staff Report and advIsed that at the May 1, 2007 CIty CouncIl meetmg, CouncIlmember SbrantI requested the CIty CouncIl consIder a ban on superstores SImIlar to the recently adopted prohIbItIOn m the CIty of LIvermore Cm Oravetz asked If the CIty had been approached by any superstores wIth the pOSSIbIlIty of commg to the CIty What would 25 hours of CIty Attorney tIme cost and how much would 80 hours of Staff tIme cost? I.. EconomIc Development DIrector Foss replIed that no superstore representatIves had approached the CIty Twenty-five 25 hours of CIty Attorney tIme would cost $5,000 and 80 hours of Staff tIme would cost between $5,000-$6,000 Cm Scholz asked how large the IKEA store would have been If It had gone through Could thIS Issue be decIded on a case-by-case baSIS If It should arIse and was there an advantage to do It that way EconomIC Development DIrector Foss replIed that IKEA would have been 265,000 sq ft CIty Attorney ElIzabeth SIlver stated that It was not an Issue that could be decIded on a case-by case baSIS Vm HIldenbrand asked IfIKEA would have fallen mto thIS ordmance EconomIC Development DIrector Foss replIed that smce there was not a defimtIon of a superstore set by the CIty, one could not say If It would have CIty Manager Ambrose stated he dId not recall the square footage of IKEA If It were a grocery or food Items that were not taxable, then It would have quahfied That was the key In the LIvermore ordmance, It was based on non-taxable Items ]l)U]BlLJIN CJIl'Y COUNCKlL MJINUl'ES VOLUME 26 RlEGlUJLAR MlEE']['][NG Augunst 21, 2007 lP AGE 361 ATl'ACHMENT 2 o o f..p 00 l\ The CouncIl and Staff dIscussed that WIth the LIvermore ordmance, It was 5% of any store 90,000 sq ft or larger, but It could be any SIze and any percentage set by the CouncIl For example, the DublIn Target was about 115,000 sq ft and had approxImately 7,000 to 7,500 sq ft of non-taxable food Janu Moore, Dublm resIdent, stated she supported the restnctlOns on the superstores DublIn CIty offiCIals were finally acknowledgmg that the CIty was reachmg the saturatIOn pomt of dIscount retaIl stores and the traffic they generated Mark Wolfe, Cahfonua Healthy CommumtIes Network, stated he had worked very closely WIth sponsors of several ordmances SImIlar the LIvermore ordmance He made hImself avaIlable to answer questIOns smce he was a famIlIar WIth the text of the ordmances and how they operated, and theIr legalIty The mtent of these ordmances that had already been passed was to prohIbIt superstores There were three retaIlers In CalIfornIa that had these types of stores These were uses that were dIfferent from the tradItIonal Target store that was In Dublm These stores were usually between 120,000 - 170,000 sq ft and devoted a certam portIOn of theIr floor space to the sale of food Items that were not taxed That was not what a supercenter was A supercenter was a bIg box retaIl store that was combmed WIth a full SIzed, full-servIce supermarket StudIes had shown the negative Impact that thIS partIcular use had on commumtleS Pnmanly thwartmg, Impedmg or pre~ emptmg Investment In downtowns and m hvable/walkable commurutIes and mvestments, and creatmg commumtIes of dIstmctIOn based on dIscreet neIghborhood servmg commercIal centers as opposed to very large regIOn servIce commercIal areas The ordmance that was passed m LIvermore, whICh mayor not be the verSIOn that ends up commg forward m Dublm, would not cover a tradltlonal Target or Wal-Mart or tradtuonal lKEA He supported the deCISIon to go forward or at least explore the optIon of bnngmg one or more verSlOns of the ordmance back for more detaIled dISCUSSIon or reVIew em Oravetz asked Mr Wolfe WIth IKEA bemg the bIggest funuture store 10 the world, why would you want an IKEA but not want a super Wal-Mart or Target Would you not say you would not want eIther If you were trymg to ban huge stores Mr Wolfe stated there were dIfferent ratIOnales for prohIbItIng or restnctmg dIfferent land uses and If you dId not want the large amount of traffic or the envIronmental Impacts assocIated havmg any large store, regardless of what It sold, then you could do what a CIty In Sonoma County dId, they saId no stores over 45,000 III theIr CIty, penod The reason JlllUBlLliN ClITY COUNClIL MlfNU'fIES VOlLUMlE 26 RlEGlUlLAR MlEETING August 2X, 2007 1? AGE 362 o o ,~ \\ they had attended the meetmg was thIS partIcular land use had been the subject of so much controversy Cm SbrantI asked Mr Wolfe what acreage was seen assocIated WIth a supercenter Was there an average m lookmg at acreage Mr Wolfe stated that the ones that had come forward m CahfornIa were anywhere from 12 and 20 acres Cm Sbrantl explamed why he brought the Item forward for dIScussIon LookIng at the CIty'S Goals and ObjectIves, the superstores were the exact OpposIte of pedestrlan- frIendly development What were some of the alternate uses for that amount of acreage There were dISCOunt stores already m downtown The loss of revenue between a superstore and lKEA would be sIgmficant There was also the Impact on small busmess He suggested the LIvermore ordmance as a model, not that the CIty would adopt that exact text He would hke to be proactIve m case a proposal for such a store dId come forward, there would already be an ordmance m place Mayor Lockhart asked If someone brought a superstore type of plan forward could the CIty then take a look at It and decIde Or If someone had enough acreage and the CIty allowed retaIl, would that project automatIcally move forward CIty Attorney SIlver stated yes, If the property was zoned approprIately and there were no restrIctIOns on the sIze of bUIldmgs or developments then It was a type of project that the CIty had dIscretIOn WIth respect to sIte development reVIew Issues, but not over the SIze of the development The tune to determme what type of usage you wanted m your commumty was at the Land Use level and the Zomng level Cm SbrantI's proposal would be to amend the Zonmg Ordmance to specIfy that buIldmgs over X sq ft were not permItted and that was perfectly permItted for the CIty to do The CIty could deSIgnate the SIze of buIldmgs and that was done m a tradItIonal Zomng Ordmance Mayor Lockhart asked If there was presently acreage m the CIty that would qualIfy for thIS supercenter SIte SIze EconomIC Development DIrector Foss stated yes there were ID1UBlLlIN Ci'fY COlUNClIL MlINU'flES VOlLlIJMIE 26 RlEGmLAR MJElE'flING August 211., 2007 PAGE 363 o o '6Ob ' \ CIty Manager Ambrose clanfied If the Mayor's earher questIOn was at the tIme that an apphcant came m to get theIr equIvalent of a Stage 2 Zomng, dId the CIty have an opportumty to change the Zonmg CIty Attorney SlIver stated that to the extent that there were propertIes that had Stage 1 Zomng, whether or not the CouncIl could place a hmltatIOn on the SIze of the bUIldmg would depend on the Stage 1 Zomng However, If there were no vested rIghts attached to the Stage 1 Zonmg, the CouncIl could always amend the Stage 1 Zomng The CouncIl could always change the zonmg absent vested nghts, WhICh were for a perIod of time In terms of dealmg With the Issue when someone came m, the Council's hands were tied more then because you had the eXIstmg zonmg Vm HIldenbrand stated she supported Cm Sbrantl's request to go forward and to look at thIS Issue m further detaIl It was better to take a proactIve approach Her bIggest concern was the City'S small busmesses and the Impacts a supercenter would have on them The CIty always supported the small busmesses Mayor Lockhart stated she would not hke to take Staff tIme away to study somethmg that might not happen If the CouncIl, by consensus felt thiS was not good for the commumty then, why not walt untll someone brought forward such plans Cm SbrantI stated that If the CouncIl was saymg that the CIty was not mterested m the superstore type busmess, then why not move forward now Mayor Lockhart stated thiS was not a logical progressIOn We had created a CIty of VIllages and pedestrian walkable areas Developers would know where the City stood on these types of Issues Cm Oravetz stated he agreed WIth Mayor Lockhart ThiS was a solutIon WIthout a problem If a busmess were to knock on our door, then there was a process they would go through that was called the Planmng CommIssIOn He was not wIllmg to spend $10,000- $15,000 on a problem that the CIty dId not have Cm Scholz asked City Attorney SIlver for c1anficatIOn If the CounCIl made a deCISion now, could they change their mmds later lDllUB]L][N C][1I'Y COlUNC][]L M1[NU1I'ES VOlLUMJE 26 REGllJJLAR MlElE1I'][NG August 21, 2007 rAGE 364l o o ~L>:b\\ CIty Attorney SIlver stated that there was zorung on the books, and the Zomng Ordmance could be changed ThIS was a dISCUSSIOn about lookmg at changmg the zonmg for commercIal uses to put a hmltatIOn of prolubltIOn on the SIze of certam types of uses That was wlthm the Councll's prerogatIve It could be reversed later However, there were certam projects that had obtamed vested nghts to develop and the vested nghts were always for a penod of tIme Dunng that tIme penod, If the CouncIl approved a commerCIal project, the developer receIved the vested nght to buIld that project for that specIfied tIme If dunng that specIfied tIme, the CouncIl deCIded they dId not want commerCIal development on that property, the CouncIl could change that zonmg and zone It reSIdentIal, but for that partIcular penod of tIme preVIOusly determmed, the developer) has the vested nght to stIll bulld commercIal If there was not a vested nght for that project, and the Counclllater changed the zomng for that property, then the developer dId not have the nght to buIld that project CIty Manager Ambrose stated there were only three 20 acre SItes m the CIty that were stIll vacant that mIght accommodate a supercenter The CIty mIght have to look at thIS on a parcel-by-parcel baSIS to see what the apphcablhty of thIS would be Commumty Development DIrectIOn Jen Ram stated that there ffilght be change over ill 10 or 15 years m central DublIn WIth some of the larger retaIl SItes If someone were to come mto the CIty WIth a project and asked If It was conSIstent WIth the current planned development, she would have to say yes If It was zoned commercIal If they wanted to do somethmg to the extenor, then they would have to go to the Planmng ComnllssIOn But If they were just gomg to move m and do mtenor modIficatIOn they nught be able to do that Cm Oravetz reIterated there was no one knockmg on the CIty'S door There was not problem now Why spend taxpayers' money now Cm SbrantI stated It would be a bIgger expense the mmute someone brought somethIng m The hours would be much greater Cm Oravetz stated there was a dIfference of opmIOn There was a process nght now that could stop thIS If they were knockmg on the CIty'S door, they could adopt an emergency ordInance He dId not see spendIng the taxpayers' dollars to do thiS now DlIffilL][N Cll1rl( COUNClllL MlINlU1r]ES VOlLUMJE 26 REGUJLAR MEE1r][NG August 21, 2007 J? AGE 365 o o (000 \ ~ Cm Shrantl asked for clarIficatIOn on If someone could ever move forward and say here IS my commerCIal project, and Without havmg an ordinance like thIS that, the CIty not have a say III It CIty Attorney Silver stated thIS was complIcated because there were SItes where such a use could be allowed and there were potentIally different eXIstmg land use approvals If you had a Stage 1 or 2 PD already approved, the CIty would have to see what uses were permItted and were there any restrIctIOns on the SIze of the bUIldmg If there were not, the CIty'S dIscretIOn was lImIted to the desIgn, cIrculatIOn, etc CommunIty Development DIrector Ram stated that If somethmg new came Ill, you would have the dIscretton through the zomng process to deal WIth It through the PD It was when you came to the reuse of eXIstmg bUIldmgs For example, If you had a home Improvement store where the zomng was rather broad and a reuse came In and you were lookmg at mtenor Improvements and maybe a change m the SIgn, then the CIty would have a more dIfficult tIme In not grantmg approval Mayor Lockhart asked the CouncIl If It would be a compromIse to have Planmng Department Staff look at what opportumtIes might be avaIlable for a supercenter SIte It was not that she wanted a supercenter m the CIty, she would not support It, but wanted to know where the real possibIlItIes lIed em SbrantI stated that was a compromise he could lIve With, It was a faIr solution CIty Manager Ambrose asked for clarIficatIOn from Council If they wanted Staff to look at the parcels that had the potential for such a development It would take tIme because PDs were custom They would have to go mto each mdlvIdual document and reVIew Its zomng and If there was a development agreement, dId It vested that zomng and look at what latItude the CIty had It was a good first step to see what was the City'S exposure On motIOn of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm Sbrantl and by unammous vote, the CIty CouncIl dIrected Staff to look at the CIty'S exposure to the Issue of a superstore and come back Wlth a report so CouncIl could then deCIde whether another step was needed ~-- -- <> 1l.lllJBlLlrN CITY COUNC][1L MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MJEE1f'KNG August 2 n ~ 2007 PAGE 366 ,- ,..... G 0 0 N L- V) QJ Q) ... .0 c: u ~ g Q) ru E .co ~ V) ~ Uo- e U ~ l;: QJ E > Q"ruU '0 0 Q) ru CD :5c(;$; Q; z -a. UJ ----------- C Zi 8 '0 ~ () r-, I I : i I I ,,__I ~ 0: <: ~ Zi ~ 8 0. '0 E B ..c: t3 u DO ~ rtl C1J '" '" ~ ~ VI ~ Vi C1J .1 n:: C1J '" i'! ~ 5l 0 ::> ~ 0 'E ~ ...J ..., ~ jij E VI "(3 III Q) ... V) Q; 5l ~ uC:Q) ~ CD ru ::J ... 0: C1J i5:J:~ 8 e 0 Q. 't:J~lX) ~ ~ roru'" 8. ::3 ~a5 ~ :> UJ VI E II w II> .J! ~~ c: It) o .0 :J Q - o >. ... It) N o u o A TT ACHMENT 3