Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2001, PH 6 - ADOPTION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL PROJECTS. [ council A] Agenda Report P9 la CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner pl;� SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL PROJECTS. CAO RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on October 1, 2001, adopt a Resolution(Attachment 1) approving design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. DISCUSSION Situation The City is currently in the process of preparing a comprehensive update of its design guidelines. In the summer of 2000, the consulting firm of Crawford, Multari & Clark was hired to prepare the update. Significant progress has been made on completing a draft of the document. While the project is somewhat behind the original schedule, staff is anticipating having a draft of the entire guidelines to distribute to the ARC for their initial review in the next couple of months. On February 13, 2001, the ARC chairperson prepared a letter requesting that specific guidelines for large-scale retail development be prepared in advance of the completion of the full comprehensive update of the guidelines (see Attachment 2 - letter from Chuck Stevenson). The specific rationale for this course of action was that there are big-box retail projects that the ARC will be potentially reviewing in the near future and that it would be advantageous to have guidelines in place that staff and the Commission could cite in discussing the design of these pending projects. Staff was then directed to coordinate the preparation of the specific guidelines for large-scale retail development with the City's consultant. Previous Review The ARC has reviewed the guidelines for large-scale retail development on three occasions—April 2, 2001, August 20, 2001, and October 1, 2001 (see Attachment 3 for copies of meeting minutes). At the initial meeting, the Commission was generally complimentary of the consultant's draft, but made several suggestions on additional concepts to cover. The issues of techniques for minimizing the scale and bulk of buildings, protection of view corridors, tree clustering as a screening technique, and ways to minimize the visual dominance of parking lots were discussed at length. �-1 i Council Agenda Report—Design Guidelines for Large-scale Retail Projects Page 2 By the August 20`' meeting, graphics had been added to the text of the draft guidelines, the entire City Planning staff had reviewed and provided input on the guidelines,the earlier comments of the ARC had been considered, and the Planning Commission had also provided direction on the guidelines. The most significant change that the ARC made to the guidelines at the October I` meeting was to modify the definition of a "large-scale retail projects" as those with an individual building in excess of 40,000 square feet. Earlier versions of the guidelines had referred to a retail building size of 45,000 square feet to be consistent with the current City zoning regulations and the proposed retail size ordinance for all zones where large retailers are allowed. Much of the discussion at the two later meetings focused on the quality and content of the graphics and the appropriate locations in the document for certain guidelines. With their recommendation to the Council for approval on October 151, the Commission was pleased with the text of the guidelines, but felt that the graphics still needed work. Even with their reservations about the graphics, the ARC believed that the guidelines would serve for needed direction on an interim basis, and that the issues with the graphics could be addressed with the further review of the comprehensive guidelines. Based on the ARC's direction and since their review, staff enlisted consultant help to make some further refinements to some graphics and add others prior to the Council's review. Purpose of the Guidelines It is important to the City to have specific guidelines for large-scale retail development because of the potentially significant aesthetic impacts that their large size can have on particular sites and more globally on the small-town character of the community. Land Use Element (LUE) Goals 28 & 33 call for maintenance of the City's existing small-town appeal and rural setting, and for new development to contribute to the City's sense of place and architectural heritage. In many communities, large-scale retailers are often developed in massive buildings with little architectural character or interest. They also typically have vast amounts of parking. These characteristics are in direct conflict with the cited LUE goals. The guidelines for large-scale retail development are intended to provide guidance on desired architectural character and note the specific requirements of site development to assist developers in designing these types of projects in order that they will be more acceptable to the decision makers reviewing them, and ultimately better received by the entire community. The guidelines are .ultimately intended to be a component of the comprehensive guidelines and used in conjunction with other chapters of the guidelines document, as well as the development standards in the City's Zoning Regulations. Therefore, the attached revised draft does not contain all of the information that a developer would need to know about the City's design review process or more specific guidelines that apply universally to most projects. The attached revised draft covers site .planning, parking areas, pedestrian circulation, building design, loading areas, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and signs, in terns of how these topics specifically relate to large-scale retail. As previously mentioned, more detailed discussion of these topics will also be covered in other places. The intent again is to tailor this section to the main 6-a Council Agenda Report—Design Guidelines for Large-scale Retail Projects Page 3 concerns connected with this specific type of development project. Therefore, the most extensive section in the attached draft guidelines is on building design. The guidelines for building design are specifically tailored to give direction on providing adequate building articulation, better quality development, and a more human scale. Development of the Guidelines The revised draft guidelines were developed by reviewing similar guidelines for other communities including Fort Collins, Colorado, and Somerset County, New Jersey, taking ideas from articles in professional publications, and most importantly, knowledge of the specific desires of the community. As previously mentioned, the ARC and City Planning staff has also reviewed the draft guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission had provided earlier direction to the ARC on certain topics to cover in the guidelines and had a copy of the latest version of the guidelines in their October 10"meeting packets. Planning Commission's Recommendations On July 11, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed an amendment to the zoning regulations to regulate the size of retail establishments. At that hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Architectural Review Commission include additional design concepts in the proposed guidelines for large-scale retail projects. Those concepts include: 1) multi-story buildings and parking, 2) mixed-use development, 3) de-emphasizing parking with alternatives parking solution, and 4) placing buildings closer to the street. The draft guidelines contain much direction regarding parking lot design that encourages pedestrian movement, accommodates alternative modes of transportation and attempts to minimize the creation of"vast seas of parking" in sections B & C (Concept 3 above). Site planning concepts that encourage project design to address adjacent streets is included in Section A (Concept 4 above). However, the concepts of multi-story buildings and parking and mixed- use development are not included in the current draft of the guidelines. Parking structures are an excellent tool for minimizing the aesthetic impacts of parking lots since they utilize less land area and screen the autos from views. While the City has encouraged the construction of parking structures downtown and discussed the possibility of their use with some of the Madonna Road shopping centers, the ARC has not included them in the draft guidelines for large-scale retail projects. Many typical large-scale retailers do not view parking structures as a feasible alternative to surface parking. Beyond the usual resistance for doing things in a different way, there are functional reasons for not desiring parking structures for such uses. The concerns are that the larger types of merchandise they offer require close convenient access without the need for elevators and constricted spaces to enable loading. There are also added costs with the development of structured parking. To staffs knowledge, the only locations where large-scale retailers have incorporated structured parking has been in very urban settings in such cities as Portland and San Francisco where land costs are at a premium. Council Agenda Report—Design Guidelines for Large-scale Retail Projects Page 4 Mixed-use development that incorporates housing in traditionally commercial settings is a popular concept in the planning profession today as it helps minimize vehicle trips and provides a 24-hour presence at sites. The City has endorsed the mixed-use concept for many years, especially in the downtown. A few years ago, the City also adopted the MU, Mixed Use overlay zoning, to help encourage the production of more housing in commercial areas. Staff saw the mixed-use concepts being folded into other sections of the guidelines, but did not envision them in this section. Some of the obvious issues are the desirability of the environment for housing given noise and safety issues, and the traditional dominance of the automobile in these type of project settings. Should vs. Shall Guidelines are principles intended to help determine a desired course of action. They should be flexible and allow for innovative design solutions that are consistent with City goals. While guidelines may be specific in terms of a preferred approach for dealing with a particular design issue, they should not prevent alternatives that achieve the same desired goals. The principal purpose of a guideline should be to convey a sense of the desired quality of a design, rather than to prescribe precise specifications. While the national trend with guidelines is to make them less vague and more detailed, they should also not become architectural specifications that encourage monotony in design. The City's design guidelines are intended to provide both general and specific criteria that an applicant should address in plans that are considered by the ARC or staff. Because they are "guidelines" and not regulations, most of the principles and concepts outlined are not mandatory requirements. However, it is planned with the total guidelines package will include some excerpts from other adopted City ordinances, such as the Parking & Driveway Standards, that are requirements and are repeated in the guidelines because of their relationship to the design concept. From staff s review of the adopted guidelines in other communities and other texts on preparing design guidelines, typically the verb "should" is used to define a desired concept in guidelines. "Shall" is typically, though not exclusively, used where a requirement is mandatory and codified by ordinance. A guideline that uses"should"is intended to be followed in most cases, unless there are valid extenuating circumstances that the decision makers can cite as to why a different approach was followed. Like the prevailing standard with guideline language, the consultant's recommendation has been to rely primarily on "should" statements. However, with the ARC's review of the guidelines, some statements were modified to use the verb "shall" where it was felt that the guideline represented a concept that would always be required. FISCAL IMPACT The development of these specialized guidelines has taken some of the focus away from the completion of the comprehensive guidelines. From a City budget perspective, addressing this individual design issue has also consumed more resources than would have been used had the large-scale retail guidelines been reviewed concurrently with the comprehensive package. Staff 6-4 Council Agenda Report—Design Guidelines for Large-scale Retail Projects Page 5 may need to request supplemental funding to complete the balance of the guidelines at mid-year budget review. From a retailer's standpoint, the guidelines might be viewed as adding costs to their standard prototypes of development because they call for additional building enhancements and site amenities. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the project with direction to City and consultant staff if the Council desires further changes to the document prior to adoption of the guidelines. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Draft Resolution with Exhibit A — Guidelines for Large-scale Retail Projects Attachment 2: Letter from Chuck Stevenson dated 2-13-01 Attachment 3: ARC Minutes of 4-2-01, 8-20-01, and 10-1-01 L:Wrcguide\Council report(adopt big box guidelines) I i I I iJ Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1999, sets forth goals, policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment; promote and enhance real property values; conserve the city's natural beauty; preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to have specific guidelines for large- scale retail development because of the potentially significant aesthetic impacts that their large scale can have on particular sites and more globally on the character of the community; and WHEREAS, the guidelines for large-scale retail development are intended to provide specific guidelines and requirements to assist developers in designing these types of projects in order that they will be more acceptable to the decision-makers reviewing them, and ultimately better received by the entire community; and WHEREAS, the guidelines for large-scale retail development are ultimately intended to be a component of the comprehensive guidelines and used in conjunction with other chapters; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 6, 2001, and has considered the testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Approval. The guidelines for large-scale retail development, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, are hereby approved. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: kj' � Resolution No. (2001 Series) Attachment f Page 2 The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 92001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: rl�0. Jor ens Ci Attomey L:Um guides\Council Resolution(adopt big box guides) 4- 7 ' EXh;bit A City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-large-Scale Retail Projects Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects Attachment 1 The City of San Luis Obispo welcomes retail commercial development projects that are pedestrian-oriented,of"human scale,"and reflect the architectural styles and features common in the City's most attractive commercial areas. Large-scale, monolithic "big-box" structures surrounded by extensive parking lots are not considered acceptable. These guidelines describe the City's expectations for quality and excellence in the design of large-scale retail projects. For the purposes of these guidelines, "large-scale retail projects" are those with an individual building in excess of 40,000 square feet. A. Use of guidelines. These design guidelines will be used by the Architectural Review Commission in the review of large-scale retail projects(additions,remodeling,relocation, or new construction). 1. The design elements of each project(including site design,architecture,landscaping, signs,and parking design)will be reviewed on a comprehensive basis. The City's other design guidelines dealing with signs,landscaping,and parking shall also be addressed whenever applicable. 2. The ARC may interpret these design guidelines with some flexibility in their application to specific projects, as not all design criteria may be workable or appropriate for each project. In some circumstances,one guideline may be relaxed to facilitate compliance with another guideline determined by the ARC to be more important in the particular case. The overall objective is to ensure that the intent and spirit of the design guidelines are followed. B. Site planning. Project site planning should emphasize pedestrian-oriented features,even though most customer trips to these facilities may be by auto. 1. The layout of buildings and parking on the site should emphasize a Q strong relationship to adjoining streets, and encourage pedestrian circulation and access between the w buildings and the street. Building X walls should generally be parallel to t~i) adjoining streets. Buildings should XO be placed near the street frontage on Z streets with slower traffic speeds and a pedestrian orientation, but may be located farther from a wide street with higher traffic speeds. Qi L14L Given the local climate, the rZo placement of buildings should also MAJOR STREET consider solar orientation, and the protection Of outdoor pedestrian Figure 1 - Emphasize Relationship with Street, areas from the wind. See Figure 1. Locate Most Parking to the Side or Rear of Building October 2001 64 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Projects Attachment 1 2. Site planning should include an outdoor use area or focal point adjacent to major building entrance. The area should provide public _ amenities such as a water feature, benches, landscaped areas, public square, etc. Projects with two or more structures should group the ';, Q �T buildings to define this space. See Figure 2. 3. When the site is located on a street or road identified as scenic in the Circulation or Open Space Element, L I I II II lRTffTTTi n the building layout should also provide views through the property to the background hills and/or Figure 2-Create a Focal Point other natural features highlighted by the Circulation or Open Space Element. 4. Building walls visible from Highway 101 should be stepped instead of appearing as a single continuous plane, and allow for clusters of evergreen trees and other extensive plantings in the foreground. See Figure 6(page 6). C Parking areas. Parking lots should be designed to be equally pedestrian and vehicular oriented,as follows. See Figures 3 and 4. 1. Location and design of parking. Parking should not be the dominant visual element of a site. Large,expansive paved areas between the building and the street are to be avoided in favor of smaller multiple lots separated by landscaping or buildings,or located to the sides and rear of buildings. No more than 50 percent of the parking required for a building may be located between the building and the street. 2. Landscaping. Parking areas should include substantial landscaping,including trees planted in an"orchard"layout. See Figure 3. 3. Pedestrian routes. Safe and direct pedestrian routes should be provided through parking areas to primary entrances, and designed as noted under "Pedestrian Circulation." 4. Overflow and employee parking.Where appropriate because of site characteristics, surrounding land uses, and project site planning, parking areas intended for employees and peak-season overflow may be allowed to have screening perimeter landscaping only,with no internal plantings,provided that these parking areas are located behind the main structures and not readily visible from streets or residential areas. 5. Shopping carts. Parking areas shall include shopping cart corrals where carts can be dropped-off without obstructing vehicle or pedestrian traffic movement,or being left in landscape planter areas. October 2001 2 —� City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Projects Attachment 1 Canopy ove to Ali ♦f_ 1 L ping �t / Y/ / 15 R.min. ` /fL mi T Protected Pedestrian Path from Street to Primary Entrance Access Figure 3-Examples of Parking Lot and Pedestrian Circulation Features a SECONDARY YW. ENTRANCE SECONDARY i ENTRANCE SECONDARY SECONDARY ENTRANCES MAJOR ENTRY ENTRANCE © © 19 EI © © D © rTrrr ® 8 ® _ ORVEWAY ------------------------- T�ESTRIAN WAi.KWAY ...- 1'.ti' ..} R i. �.lti.••may:•.. X. r�:. ..•�.:.: : moi ..•. MW Figure 4-Examples of Parking Lot and Pedestrian Circulation Features October 2001 3 �� City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Projects Aftachment 1 D. Pedestrian circulation and amenities. It is the nature of large retail uses that most customers arrive by car and make purchases that could not be carried home by foot or bike. Nevertheless, the large parking lots in these projects cause much of the customer's experience to be as a pedestrian,often walking long distances from car, to entrance and back. Safe accommodation for pedestrians is essential and must be an integral part of site design. . 1. Sidewalks at least eight feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. 2. Sidewalks must be provided along the full length of the building along any facade with a customer entrance, and along any facade abutting a parking area. The sidewalks must be located at least six feet from the facade to provide area for landscaping,except where the facade incorporates pedestrian-oriented features such as pedestrian entrances or ground floor windows. Sidewalks should be eight feet wide,exclusive of any area planned for outdoor display or storage. The sidewalks should have wells for canopy trees at 30-foot intervals along the sidewalk edge adjacent to parking areas or vehicle access ways,so that the combination of building wall,sidewalk,and trees provide an enhanced pedestrian experience. See Figures 4 and 5. 3. Pedestrian walkways within the site should provide a weather protection feature such as an awning within 15 feet of all customer entrances. See Figure 5. 4. Pedestrian walkways within the site must be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of special pavers,bricks, or colored/textured concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and the attractiveness of the walkways. Pedestrian circulation in parking areas should be parallel to traffic flow toward building entrances, and separated from drive aisles within 50 feet of entrances. Sidewalk landings should be provided and extended between parkingspaces where needed to connect pedestrians to walkways. See Figures 3 and 4. October 2001 4 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-large-Scale Retail Projects Attachment E. Building design. Building design shall be site-specific,and incorporate design themes and features reflecting San Luis Obispo's character and history. Building details should relate to the scale of pedestrians as well as passing motorists. The tendency of many"big-box' retail chains is to replicate a corporate or generic aesthetic, often treating the building elevations much like large,scale-less billboards. The lack of human scale and absence of architectural character or local connection serve to emphasize a disconnection between the chain store and the community. These conventional approaches to large-scale retail design are unacceptable in San Luis Obispo. Canopy over Cart Storage f Covered Store Entrance Rich Material Textures (eg.wood,stone) _ y ' Pedestrian Walkway Figure 5-Examples of Building Design Features 1. Entrances. Each side of a principal building facing a public street should feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting streets,this requirement should apply only to two sides of the building. The use of a corner entrance will satisfy the entrance requirement for only one side of the building. Customer entrances must be clearly defined and highly visible,with features such as canopies or porticos,arcades,arches,wing walls,and integral planters. See Figure 5. 2 Exterior wall materials. Predominant exterior building materials must be of high quality. Examples of these materials include brick, wood, stone, tinted/textured October 2001 5 /� City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Projects stucco, and tile accents. Smooth or split-faced concrete masonry units, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels should generally be avoided for expansive wall surfaces,but may be appropriate in limited areas as building accents. See Figure 5. a. Building walls should incorporate the same quality and level of detail of ornamentation on each elevation visible from a public right-of-way. b. Building facade details and materials should be authentic,and integrated into building design,and should not be or appear as artificial"glued/tacked-on" features,such as trellises that do not support plant materials,encouraging the perception of low quality. See also guidelines E.3.c below regarding wall design details. 3. Wall design. All building walls,especially those visible from public roadways or residential areas should be designed to break up the appearance of a box-like structure. See Figure 6. • Lit l Figure 6-Break-up the Appearance of a Box-Like Structure a. Facade articulation. Include extensive facade articulation in the form of horizontal and vertical design elements to provide variations in wall plane and surface relief,including providing a variety of surface textures,recesses and projections along wall planes. Facades greater than 100 feet in length should incorporate recesses or protections at least 20 feet deep along at least 30 percent of the length of the facade. Ideally, these recesses or projections should accommodate secondary uses/liner shops,and/or reflect the different internal functions of the store. See Guideline E.6(page 9),and Figures 6 and 7. October 2001 1 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Projects Attachment 1 . � QD annat- ........... Figure 7-Examples of Wall Features b. Ground floor windows. Ground floor windows are highly encouraged. These should ideally provide pedestrians with views into the building, but even display windows can improve the pedestrian experience of the building at the street or sidewalk level. See Figure 8. C. Design details. A variety of building and wall features should be used, in ways that avoid a cluttered appearance. These may include varying colors, reveals, an external wainscot or bulkhead at the building base to reduce apparent bulk, cornices and parapet details, and moldings. The features should employ a variety of materials as appropriate for the architectural style. See also guideline E.2 above regarding exterior materials. Bulkheads should be constructed of a durable material other than stucco,such as tile,brick,rock,or pre-cast concrete. Windows,awnings,and arcades must total at least 60 percent of the facade length abutting a street. See Figure 8. d. Corporate identification. Colors or logos identified with an individual company should be employed as building accent features,and not used as the main or dominant architectural feature of any wall. e. Colors. Large areas of bright, intense colors should generally be avoided. While more subdued colors usually work best for large facade areas,brighter accent colors may be appropriate for trim, windows, doors, and other key architectural elements. Bold stripes of color are not an adequate substitute for architectural detailing. October 2001 7 / —1 i City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Projects Attachment i rniv�-\.M w �b • S t Figure 8-Facade Articulation,Building and Wall Features,Windows,Vertical Wall Articulation 4. Vertical wall articulation. The height of building walls facing streets or on-site pedestrian areas should be varied so that the vertical mass is divided into distinct, human-scaled elements. a. Except on a pedestrian-oriented public street where buildings are at the back of the sidewalk,structures over 20 feet in height(typical for structures of two stories or more)should step-back the building mass at least five feet for the portions of the structure above 14 feet(or the height where an actual second story begins)to provide visual variation. b. The facade of the areas stepped-back above the actual or apparent first floor should include detailed building articulation with windows, eaves, and decorative details such as tiles, wood trim, etc. as appropriate. It is also important that the facade below the step-back have a substantial structural appearance,and not simply appear as an awning"tacked-on"to the building. C. Building facades that are tall for no functional reason, have little surface articulation or relief,and are simply intended to provide high,visible surfaces for tenant signage are not appropriate. S. Roof lines. The roof lines should also be varied to break up the mass of the building. Pitched roofs with roof overhangs proportional to the scale of the adjoining building wall are encouraged. Major roof-mounted equipment should not be visible from off the site. Cornices and decorative parapetsshould be utilized to conceal flat roofs and to screen any roof-mounted mechanical equipment. The height of mechanical equipment shall not exceed that of the parapets or other roof features intended to screen the equipment. Enclosures,blinds, or other architectural treatment may be necessary to screen roof equipment visible from residences or public areas. See Figure 8. October 2001 -16 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Projects Atpachmeni i 6. Location of secondary uses. Secondary uses or departments including pharmacies, photo finishing/development,snack bars,dry cleaning,offices,storage,etc.,should be oriented to the outside of the building by projecting them outward or recessing them inward. This includes providing the individual uses with separate entrances and windows facing the outside of the building. The intent is to break up the appearance of the large,primary building with more human-scale elements. Food courts/bars should provide indoor and sheltered outdoor eating areas with tables, chairs,umbrellas,etc. See Figures 9 and 10. MAJOR TENANT LINER SHOPS T NANT E RY r Figure 9-Break-up Facade with Secondary Uses J&MPG i hill, . Figure 10-Facade Articulation,Building and Wall Features,Windows,Vertical Wall Articulation 7. Design continuity. Large-scale retail projects shall incorporate elements to visually unify the buildings and signage without creating monotony. Buildings on separate October 2001 9 J/� ' City of San Luis Obispo • Design Guidelines-Large-Scale Retail Pro iects Attachment 1 pads should maintain the overall architectural character of the site,but at the same time architectural variety is encouraged. F. Loading areas.Loading docks,trash collection areas,outdoor storage,and similar facilities should be incorporated into the overall design of the building and landscaped,so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained, and out of view from adjacent properties and streets. Any screening materials must be of the same quality and appearance as those used on the building itself. G. Landscaping. Landscaping that complements and is in scale with the building should be provided adjacent to structures. Landscaping should include evergreen trees,shrubs and ornamental landscaping(and berms where appropriate)with all landscape areas having a minimum width of six feet. Landscaping should be used to create a focal point near front building entrances. Sidewalks and other walkways should also be integrated with landscape areas around building base and in parking lot areas. Trees should be planted in notable clusters within larger planting areas, and not exclusively in lines along building facades. H. Outdoor lighting. The design, size, and placement of outdoor lighting fixtures on buildings and in parking lots should be in keeping with the architectural style of the buildings. More, smaller-scale parking lot lights instead of fewer, overly tall and large parking lot lights should be installed. Outdoor light fixtures mounted on building walls should relate to the height of pedestrians and not exceed eight to 10 feet. All light fixtures should be directed downward and shielded so that the light source itself is not visible. I. Signs. 1. Proposed large-scale retail projects shall include a comprehensive program that effectively integrates signage into the project design. 2. Signs for these projects,and the buildings themselves,should not be designed to be freeway-oriented. 3. Along with typical auto-oriented wall and freestanding signage, permanent, pedestrian-oriented window,awning,projecting,and suspended signs should also be provided. October 2001 10 � �� Attachment 2 February 13, 2001 Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Urgent-Design Guidelines for Development of Large Scale Retail Uses Dear Ron, Based on recent Council actions, including the results of the Council goal-setting workshop regarding large building development standards, I believe it is important that we move quickly to have architectural design guidelines and standards in place for large scale retail uses. Current guidelines are not adequate to address issues related to large scale retail uses, and do not clearly convey the design preferences of the city. The ideal situation is to have the guidelines in place before big-box retail projects are submitted for review. Therefore, I believe a sense of urgency is appropriate given community sensitivities, Council concerns, and the imminent submittal of project applications. Although we've contracted with Crawford, Multari, & Clark, to prepare our comprehensive architectural design guidelines, which will address large scale retail uses, preparation of the document is not proceeding at a pace fast enough to address this quickly emerging community issue. Because the ARC has yet to see a draft of the guidelines, I am concerned that waiting for the entire document to be completed before we review it (which will take several meetings) and then forwarding it to the Council for additional review will take considerable time. Perhaps a better approach is to focus on the large scale retail guidelines first and then continue on with completing the remaining guidelines. My suggestion is that we ask Paul Crawford to adjust the work program schedule so that preparation of large scale retail guidelines will proceed right away, and that we not wait until the entire document is complete to see them. This shouldn't require significant effort on the consultant's part, and should not impact the project budget because we discussed their inclusion in our scoping meeting. Besides, there are good examples of big box retail guidelines and standards from other cities that we can consider for our community. In addition, I recommend that after ARC review and approval, we forward this component of the design guidelines to the Council as soon as possible for adoption as an urgency ordinance or resolution. Based on concern for timing, I would like to .see the first draft of large retail uses guidelines and standards be presented to the ARC on their March 19, 2001 meeting agenda. This could be a working meeting with the consultant as well as staff available to facilitate timely review and comment. Thank you for your attention to this matter and I am available to discuss this further with you if necessary. I can be reached at 541-0724 after 4:30 p.m. M-F. Sincerely, Charles Stevenson,AICP Chairman, Architectural Review Commission c: Mayor Allen Settle Council Member Ken Schwartz (9 V Council Member John Ewan Attachment 2 Council Member Jan Howell Marx Council Member Christine Mullholland Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer G �/9 ARC Minutes Attachment 3 April 2, 2001 Page 2 Comms. Lopes asked about curve in site plan for theXwhivch t a Puglisi said it probably would be rectilinear because it would be difficood fence. Commr. Stevenson asked about the possibility of a ll to screen coolers, rather than a screening fence at the prominent buildithe intersection of the adjacent streets. Commr. Lopes mentioned that compressors make nn be disruptive to pedestrians. He asked about additional landsca d screening of the transformer, which is located near the driveway off Higuera Str t. Commr. Boudreau said he agreed with the anges and likes applicant's sign. He would like to see more landscaping around t e transformers and other equipment. Commr. Schultz agreed with Commr. oudreau, including the need for additional landscaping. Commr. Stevenson pointed out ncerns with consistency with approving a sign too high on the tower. Commr. Lopes said he ten s to agree with Commr. Stevenson regarding the sign and would like to see a con ition regarding enhanced screening of the coolers and gas meters at the southwe comer of the building. On motion by Co mr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the ARC granted the project approv ith an added Condition #3, which discussed the need for additional screening of ound-mounted equipment, as outlined in the meeting follow-up letter. AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Schultz, Howard and Lopes NOES: Commr. Boudreau ABS T: Commrs. Chandler and Rawson e motion passed. 2. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of draft design guidelines for warehouse retail and large-scale commercial projects; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission provide preliminary comments and/or direction to the city and consultant staff on the draft guidelines. �aG ARC Minutes April 2, 2001 Attachment 3 Page 3 The public hearing was opened. Commr. Stevenson expressed concern with the City's Hwy 101 view corridor and the potential visual impacts of large-scale retailers. He suggested looking at utilizing landscaping clusters to help minimize the impact of long walls. Commr. Lopes pointed out that there are other types of large-scale uses that aren't retail, like telecom uses, which have massive buildings that raise similar kinds of design issues. He mentioned that he had prepared detailed written comments on the proposed guidelines, which had been distributed to the consultant and ARC members. Commr. Boudreau suggested looking at maximizing landscaping in key areas for heightened visual amenities and pointed to the North Boulder Village Center as an example. He noted that he wants to encourage flexibility. Paul Crawford discussed how the draft guidelines included the general objective of maintaining open views of important scenic resources, but did not prescribe a quantifiable view blockage percentage (#6 in Commr. Lopes' memo). The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Howard said buildings should "face" the street and include entries where appropriate. (A.1.) Commr. Stevenson said that the Fort Collins, Colorado guidelines call for multiple entrances. Commr. Lopes said that structured parking should be top priority. Commr. Schultz suggested that landscaping design should encourage pedestrian activities and rest areas. Commr. Stevenson said that landscaping clusters provide better screening (enhance Section F) and commented on the use of berms. He mentioned that the Tustin Marketplace has good loading areas and plans for cart storage. Commr. Boudreau brought up practical concerns with both providing pedestrian walkways and minimizing parking areas. He felt that Section D., Building Design, should note what we want to see with these types of development. Commr. Howard felt that Section D should note up front that building designs need to �-al ARC Minutes Attachment 3 April 2, 2001 Page 4 take into account the specific features of the individual sites that they are proposed on. Commr. Stevenson suggested broadening the definition of an abutting street. He also felt that freeway-oriented signage should be discouraged. Commr. Lopes commented on the desire to provide upper-level windows for office spaces. Commr. Lopes noted that Chico was requiring liner uses with big box retailers; he added that the city might need to make changes to its zoning regulations to encourage this. He suggested the addition of solar orientation and wind protection as categories to cover in these guidelines. ----------------- Russ Kissinger of Air Vol Block, Inc. gave a presentatio n the range of materials his company manufactures and applications for their e. He described the materials in distributed packets. He provided a slide pre tation showing the use of materials in buildings, walls and hardscapes. He plained how adding colors to blocks can increase costs and talked about sting curves and planting areas. He said that pavers are a good way to ad or and provide easy access to utilities. The meeting ad' ed at 8:10 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commissi , scheduled for Monday, April 16, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Ro City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Ricci, Recording Secretary 6�a I Draft ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 11 Add Condition #20 —To consider the use of stepping-stones where a livable in island planters to allow pedestrian ingress and egress. Add Condition #21 — To consider other es of architect I treatments for the medallion features on the Best Bu buildingand where a l' ble on other buildings; possibly using recessed details and other types of features. Condition #19B — Bike lockers should be located in ales visible location. Commr. Boudreau second. There was discussion of the motion. Commr. Lopes discussed pedestrian flo /nd ont of building "L". Condition #14 —Add: Provide lar a treehere feasible. Add Condition #22 - Consider usin color scheme at the entry of Best Buy that more closely relates the color of the pedi ent or gable feature with the two ad'acent.columns. Commr. Lopes commented tha he proposed strawberry tree is notoriously messy. Add Condition #23 — Consi r use of an alternative tree in lieu of strawberry tree where it poses a messv conditio related to the hardsca e. Commr. Lop/andCmr. Schultz suggested using additional planters to help block the wind. Discussion cnters and benches took place. Condition #4he entries by use of additional potted plants and benches. C/forestion. ACommrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Lopes, and Stevenson NNone ACommrs. Howard 4.J Clibmide. ARC 42-00; Review of draft design guidelines for warehouse retail and large-scale commercial projects; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant_. (Continued from August 6, 2001) (Pam Ricci, staff,- Paul Crawford, consultant) Associate Planner, Pam Ricci, presented the staff report recommending the commission review the text, determine any necessary changes to cover issues, and provide direction on the graphics. o?.3 Draft ARC Minutes August 20, 2001 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 12 Mr. Paul Crawford summarized revisions including changes made based on comments from City staff. He expressed a preference for generic graphics. Commr. Lopes discussed the use of the document and suggested adding a preamble to clarify this document's relationship to the comprehensive guidelines. There was discussion about the guidelines and general agreement with Commr. Lopes' suggestion. Commr. Boudreau felt that the graphic on page one should identify major and minor streets. Commr. Stevenson questioned the placement of "close to the street", and "away from the street". He noted that it should depend on where the development is located; i.e., residential or rural. Commr. Lopes suggested wording that provides for settings with deeper setbacks which may be appropriate where there are scenic views. Three was discussion concerning setbacks. Mr. Crawford suggested the following as a concept: "Buildings should generally be parallel to adjoining streets. Buildings should also be placed as close to the street as required setbacks allow, although wider setbacks may be appropriate in areas in the city with wider, higher speed streets." Commr. Stevenson expressed conflict with Al and B1. He felt that B1 suggests there can be a lot of parking in front. Discussion about parking followed. Commr. Rawson suggested striking out the part that says development should be placed as close to the street as required setbacks, and instead retaining the part where it says large parking areas between the building and the street should generally be avoided. Commr. Lopes mentioned that the first paragraph, second to the last line; consider changing to: total building area in excess of 45,000 square feet. Ms. Ricci commented that the proposed guidelines are intended for larger retail buildings. Discussion about the overlap of larger retail development and smaller scale development took place. Commr. Lopes suggested adding to item # 3 on Page one, references to the Circulation and Open Space Elements as well. � a� Draft ARC Minutes -- ATTACHMENT August 20, 2001 Page 13 Commr. Stevenson suggested that on B1, page 2, to add; "no more than 50% covered parking can occur between the building and the street". He was concerned that there were only three standards for parking area design and felt there should be more detail. Commr. Novak questioned provisions made for cart corrals and landscaping adjacent to the cart corrals. She also asked about the current standard for the percentage of landscaping. Ms. Ricci answered the current standard, with the exception of setback areas, is 5%. The need for better use of graphics to effectively convey the desire for a larger percentage of landscaping in parking lots was discussed. Commr. Lopes asked if the 6-foot minimum was wide enough for tree planting. He mentioned that maybe the guidelines should have planters at intervals on the facade of the building. Mr. Crawford commented that it might be better for the wall surface to have pedestrian oriented features and treat the sidewalk like a street and have street trees on the parking lot side. Commr. Schultz commented that some of the "shoulds" would be better if they were "shalls". There was discussion concerning what constituted San Luis Obispo's distinctive style. Commr. Lopes commented that figure 7 or figure 8 graphic should show more eye level perspectives. He commented on the graphic showing pedestrians being protected by bollards and questioned whether they might be more appropriate near an entrance. Commr. Stevenson commented that he liked the idea of figure # 6 on page 5. He then commented that the recesses called out in 3.a. on Page 5 should be greater than 5 feet; such as 20 feet. Commr. Lopes suggested that wording would work better if "must" was changed to should, or shall. There was discussion of tree wells and pedestrian walkways. Commr. Stevenson said that fig.7 doesn't convey facade articulation. There was discussion about orienting entrances. Commr. Novak commented on page 5b, about providing views for pedestrian experience. She suggested making it a requirement through the use of the word "shall". Commr. Boudreau suggested melding together figures 8 and 10. � as Draft ARC Minutes — �- ATTACIHMEMT 3 August 20, 2001 Page 14 Commr. Lopes suggested that the first sentence in 3a could go under facade articulation, "Facades greater than 100 feet in length ... should be moved to vertical wall articulation." Commr. Stevenson suggested incorporating several small graphics to illustrate guideline 6d; examples of corporate identification. There was discussion concerning a variety of building and wall features, elements with pediments and new, more concise graphics used. Commr. Lopes commented that lighting features should be located at pedestrian or human scale, i.e., 8 — 12 ft. high. Commr. Stevenson commented that under section F; Landscaping, there should be mention that use of tree clusters and that a graphic should be used to illustrate this concept. The public hearing was opened. There was no public comment. The public hearing was closed. Commr. Rawson presented a motion to continue the guidelines to the meeting of October 1, 2001, and to incorporate suggested changes. Second by Commr. Novak AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Howard Commr. Schultz presented a motion to accept the minutes from the ARC meeting of June 18, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commr. Novak. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Howard The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nora O'Donnell, Recording Secretary � a� ATTACHME4T 3 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 1, 2001 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Rob Schultz, Michael Boudreau, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. Hana Novak Staff: Associate Planner Pamela Ricci PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments from the public. PROJECTS: J1. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of design guidelines for warehouse retail and large- scale commercial projects; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending final approval with any necessary revisions to be made by City staff and the consultant prior to consideration of the guidelines by the City Council. Paul Crawford, consultant, reported on changes made to the text of the guidelines, recommending final approval with direction to staff to make any additional changes as directed. Commr. Lopes asked if there was a Planning Commission recommendation to consider guidelines addressing mixed use development, and multi-storied buildings and structured parking. Ms. Ricci explained that the conclusion was that those areas are best covered under other sections of the comprehensive guidelines. Mr. Crawford commented that he believed the text reflects all the changes the Commission asked for, and felt that the guidelines were ready to go as is, given that there would be other opportunities for further refinement after going to the City Council with the ARC's review of the comprehensive guidelines. Commr. Stevenson asked for clarification to the term refinement, and asked if that meant in the area of graphics. G a� Draft ARC Minutes ATTACHMENT .1 October 1, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Crawford replied that yes, there was not enough time to add more graphics prior to the Council's review of the large-scale retail guidelines. There was discussion concerning graphics and directions for acceptability. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Mary Beth R. Schroeder of 2085 Wilding Lane felt her golden years are being disrupted by unnecessary growth, and that restrictions should be held on developers. She stated that some growth is purely promotional and that it depletes water and road resources. She concluded with the sentiments that the town is already bursting at the seams, that she doesn't want to see any more "Big Box" development and further over- influence of students in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Rade Radovich commented on the style of architecture for Big Box stores, and that it would be wise to take the Big Box out of the Big Box by giving it more character and integrity so it won't look as intrusive. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS The ARC discussed the proposed guidelines on a page-by-page basis. Commr. Lopes expressed concern with the threshold of 45,000 sq. ft. He felt that 40,000 would be a better threshold. Ms. Ricci replied that 45,000 sq. ft. is the size stated in the proposed retail size ordinance, and the number may need to be modified to be consistent with whatever the Council ultimately approves. Commr. Rawson commented that he would support a lower threshold. Commr. Schultz asked what would happen should a developer present a plan for three 30,000 sq. ft. buildings for one lot. They technically would not fall under the proposed guidelines unless the total square footage was counted. There was discussion about square footage requirements. Mr. Crawford proposed that for the purposes of these guidelines, large-scale retail projects are those with individual buildings or total floor area in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. Further discussion concerning project size ensued. Ms. Ricci commented that the large-scale retail guidelines were intended to address projects with very large single buildings such as Home Depot and to compliment the ordinances already in place. Ultimately, the comprehensive guidelines will contain information to guide the development of other types of retail projects. She indicated that (O o�0 Draft ARC Minutes _ October 1, 2001 Page 3 many of the same architectural design principles can be applied to smaller projects as well. There was discussion about what constitutes some of the distinctive styles of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Crawford suggested including an appendix to the guidelines with photographs, which illustrates desirable design characteristics. There was discussion ,concerning parking and how the amount of street traffic should help decide how close to the street development should be, and whether parking for the development should be located to the front or side. There was discussion concerning the use of graphics and text. Commr. Boudreau commented that the text should be the main driving force and that nothing should be included there that the ARC would not want to be seen in the design of a project. Commr. Schultz presented a motion to grant final approval to the guidelines with the changes stated concerning the wording, and with the understanding that additional refinements to the graphics were needed. Second by Commr. Boudreau. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Boudreau, Lopes, Stevenson, Howard, and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak Commr. Lopes presented a second motion to recommend the City Council consider the threshold size for the applicability of the guidelines to be 40,000 sq. ft. and to incorporate that into the ordinance as well. Second by Commr. Schultz. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Schultz, Stevenson, and Howard NOES: Commrs. Boudreau and Rawson Absent: Commr. Novak Mr. Crawford requested clarification concerning the floor area threshold. There was discussion concerning the second motion and cumulative sq. ft. threshold. Commr. Stevenson suggested that the second motion be revised to reflect discussion. Commr. Lopes supported rewording the sentence in the second motion so that the square feet total does not reflect cumulative sq. ft., but that a suggestion is made to the City Council to consider a threshold of 40,000 sq. ft. Mr. Crawford suggested the following wording: " For the purposes of these guidelines, large scale retail projects are those with individual buildings in excess of 40,000 sq. ft." /0 �9 Draft ARC Minutes October 1, 2001e� MEEINT 3 Page 4 Commr. Stevenson recommended clarifying the motions. Commr. Schultz restated his motion to grant final approval of the design guidelines with the change in the first sentence from 45,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. and that was with the intention that the graphics need to be reworked and added to. Commr. Stevenson suggested incorporating Mr. Crawford's sentence for large-scale retail projects with individual buildings in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. Second by Commr. Lopes. No further discussion. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Boudreau, Stevenson, Howard and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak 2. 771 Foothill Boulevard. ARC MI 47-01; Review of storefront chang to Albertson's grocery store; C-N zone; Albertson's, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recomme ng final approval based on the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Sh larified the following conditions: #2 could be deleted if the Commission did not fee ' necessary. Condition #3 discussed matching the brick already used on the te, or considers using a contrasting brick in the final project. Condition #5 was a ggestion to place a bench or seat wall along the left hand side of the elevation tha aces Broad Street. Applicant is not in agreement with Condition #5 as it exc ds their budget for the project. Conditions #6 and #7, related to the reararea o e store. The applicants provided an exhibit outlining loading area, chain link w* slats, and the recycling area. Staff recommends additional landscaping to ma the landscaping of adjoining property. Mr. Pat Blote, RRM Design Group, s ke in support of the project. He said he agrees with most of the conditions, how er would like approval to leave the elevations as submitted and have condition 2 deleted. Regarding Condition #3, he said the architect was able to find brick, which closely matches the current brick, but Albertson's is not oppose o the Commissions decision. Regarding Condition #5, the applicant is asking the mmission to approve the condition, but limit the improvements to p/side ls an cleaning up of the area. The applicant submitted a larger scale plaes s all the listed concerns pertaining to Condition #6.. Thession of condition #5. The applicant requested using only plantings to enhwalls, not benches. Thesked for clarification on Condition #4 calling for a 4-foot wide clear walBlote stated that he believed ADA requirements call for a 44-inch walkway. / to council M.6,D. o j mm Nvm ac En oa REpoRt )9y CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Di Prepared By: John Shoals, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO SIZE LIMITATIONS FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES; TA 29-01 CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt draft ordinance "A" amending the Zoning Regulations to set building size limits on large-scale retail establishments in all commercial zoning districts; and 2. As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt draft ordinance `B" amending the Zoning Regulations to add exceptions for: a. existing retail establishments, b. projects with an approved development permit and development permit applications that have been deemed complete prior to the effective date of the adopted size limits. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Planning Commission is recommending that the Council approve an ordinance limiting the size of large-scale retail projects in the City of San Luis Obispo. The recommended ordinance would establish the following size limits: 45,000 square feet gross floor area for buildings in the C-T (Tourist-Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) zones, and 60,000 square feet gross floor area for retail buildings in the C-C (Central-Commercial), C-R (Retail-Commercial) and C-S (Service-Commercial) zones, with the possibility of going up to 110,000 square feet in the C-C and C-R zones and a provision to exceed the 110,000 square foot limitation by up to 25% (137,500 square feet) with a ground floor maximum of 80,000 square feet, if the building includes multiple floors and meets specific performance standards. Those standards are: the proposed retail use will serve the community as a whole and the nature of the use requires a larger size building in order to function; the building is designed to respect the scale of development in the surrounding area; and the new building complies with the adopted design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. The Commission is also recommending that the Council set a maximum parking requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor for retail buildings over 45,000 square feet and approve ordinance exceptions for existing retail stores and projects with approved or complete development permit applications ("pipeline projects). �- I TA29-01 (Retail Size Ordinance) Page 2 To approve the Commission's recommendation, the Council must adopt draft ordinance "A" and draft Ordinance `B." If the Council does not support the Commission's recommendation, it has several options: 1) adopt the recommended retail size ordinance without exceptions; 2) adopt an ordinance based on maximum floor area regardless of zone; 3) adopt an ordinance based on design standards and not building size; 4) adopt an ordinance prohibiting trademark architecture on retail buildings; 5) reject the recommended ordinance finding it to be inconsistent with the City's General Plan; and 6) continue the item with direction to City staff. DISCUSSION Situation The City Council considered this item on September 4, 2001. After lengthy discussion, the City Council unanimously voted to refer the draft ordinance back to the Planning Commission for evaluation of the effects of changing the building size limit in the C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) zone from 45,000 to 55,000 square feet, setting a maximum parking requirement or using alternative parking strategies and using multi-level buildings for large-scale retail establishments. The Planning Commission considered the Council's direction on October 10, 2001. After lengthy discussion, the Commission reaffirmed its support for the previously recommended retail size cap ordinance with clarifications and recommendations on the building size limit in the C-N zoning district, maximum parking requirements and the effects of retail buildings with maximum floors. The Commission voted 6-0-1(Commissioner Loh was absent) to recommend City Council adoption of an ordinance establishing a 45,000 square feet retail size limit in the C-N zoning district. The Commission voted 5-1-1 (Commissioner Aiken voting no) to recommend that the City Council adopt a maximum parking requirement of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The Commission voted 6-0-1 to find that the Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects work in concert with zoning and development standards to address the external effects of these retail developments. The Commission voted 4-2-1 (Commissioners Aiken and Caruso voting no) to recommend that the retail size limit ordinance include a provision to allow retail establishments in the C-C and C-R zones to exceed the 110,000 square foot limitation by up to 25% with a ground floor maximum of 80,000 square feet, if the building includes multiple floors and meets certain criteria. Those criteria are outlined in the evaluation section of this report. The Commission also clarified that the recommended retail size cap ordinance is based on gross floor area as defined in the City's Zoning Regulations. The Commission determined that the recommended ordinance allows retail buildings with multiple floors to encourage efficient land use and infill development opportunities within the City. A copy of the Planning Commission resolution is included as Attachment 1, the Planning Commission minutes as Attachment 2 and the Commission agenda report as Attachment 3. TA29-01 (Retail Size Ordinance) Page 3 Ordinance Clarifications and Recommendations Retail Size Limit in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone The Planning Commission is recommending a 45,000 square feet retail size limit in the C-N zoning district. The Commission determined that the C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) zoning district is intended to accommodate neighborhood-serving uses. The Commission felt that a 45,000 square foot retail size limit supports most of the existing retail grocery stores in the C-N zone and supports the idea that these are neighborhood-serving uses. The CAO previously recommended that the size limit in the C-N zone be increased from 45,000 to 55,000 square feet. The basis of that recommendation was primarily to allow existing retail grocery stores to expand at their present locations and to avoid potential nonconforming structures. By increasing the size limit, existing stores would be allowed to expand to keep pace with industry trends, and they would also be encouraged to remain in existing neighborhood centers. Allowing larger stores in the C-R zone than in the C-N zone in San Luis Obispo could create a reason for grocery stores to move from C-N to C-R zones. The future consideration of a new "Community Commercial"zone may provide an alternative solution. Parking The Commission determined that large-scale retail projects use land area inefficiently and often exceed City Parking Requirements creating large paved parking areas. They felt that establishing a parking maximum requirement would reduce the effects of these large paved areas. The Planning Commission is recommending that the ordinance establish a maximum parking requirement of one space per 300 square feet (sq.ft.) of gross floor area for large-scale retail projects over 45,000 square feet, with an exception to allow more spaces if multi-level parking structures are utilized. The City's parking requirements were developed based on nationwide parking surveys and modified for specific districts or zones. Retail warehouse stores that sell bulk goods stores in sales areas currently require one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Large department stores currently require one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. City staff contacted several California cities to find out what are their standard parking requirements. Most cities require a minimum standard of one parking space per 200 square feet of floor area or 300 square feet of floor area for retail uses. The cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero and Santa Maria require a minimum of one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Attachment 4 shows the parking standards for select California cities. In August 1987, The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) produced a survey of peak parking spaces occupied by discount stores between 88,000 and 118,375 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). For clarification, this analysis assumes gross leasable space to be the same as gross floor area. According to the ITE manual, a discount store has an average of 3.57 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area (1 space per 280 square feet) occupied on weekdays, an average of 3.40 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area(1 space per 294 square feet) occupied on Saturdays and an average of 2.84 spaces per 1000 square feet (1 space per 352 square feet) occupied on Sundays. If these rates were applied to a 110,000 square foot discount store, approximately 393 spaces would be 7-3 i f TA29-01 (Retail Size Ordinance) Page 4 occupied on weekdays, 374 spaces on Saturday and 312 spaces on Sunday. It should, however, be noted that the ITE survey did not account for parking during the holiday season. According to the ITE parking generation manual, within shopping centers there were on average 3.23 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area (1 space per 310 square feet) occupied on weekdays, 3.87 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area (1 space per 258 square feet) occupied on Saturdays, and 1.81 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area(1 space per 552 square feet) occupied on Sundays. Because parking standards are based on average usage, there are situations where a use's parking demand exceeds the City standard. In an effort to get a more accurate assessment of parking demand, several local shopping centers and freestanding discount stores were examined. The remodeled Madonna Plaza (313,828 square feet total) was recently approved with a parking ratio of one space for each 208 square feet of floor area (the current parking ratio is 1:214 sq.ft.). The parking ratio for the approved SLO Promenade (302,000 square feet total) was one parking space for each 258 square feet of retail floor area. The Arroyo Grande Wal-Mart, a 102,000-square foot discount store (in the Five Cities Shopping Center)has about 500 spaces (1:200 sq.ft. parking ratio); the Atascadero Home Depot, a 135,000-square foot store with about 700 spaces (1:200 sq.ft. parking ratio) and the Santa Maria Costco/House-to-Home, a 225,000-square foot power center (135,000 Costco) with approximately 900 spaces (1:250 sq.ft. parking ratio). The Costco/House-to- Home in Santa Maria is probably the best example of a parking lot that serves the store's needs without being "over-parked." During weekend shopping days, the parking lot has been observed near the maximum, but never completely filled. An earlier survey of retail establishments determined that most retailers do not have a specific parking requirement. Those with specific parking standards are: Home Depot at one space per 200 square feet of floor area; IKEA at 1,600 spaces minimum per store (about one space per 90 square feet) and Costco at 800 spaces minimum (approximately one space per 180 square feet). Attachment 5 lists the desired parking standard for each retail use. The Planning Commission's proposal to allow more parking than 1:300 maximum, for retail stores over 45,000 square feet provided it is structured, would allow establishments to meet their corporate standards provided the land area for parking is reduced using structured parking. If the Council finds a 1:300 maximum is not appropriate, it could adopt a maximum parking standard that is similar to the parking ratios of the local commercial centers identified above. Effects of Multiple Floors The Commission discussed the effects of multi-level buildings on the proposed ordinance. Commission members acknowledged that there are few examples of the large-scale retail stores in multiple floor formats, but felt that these stores are usually constructed in densely populated urban centers such as Los Angeles, Pasadena and New York. For example, Home Depot and Costco are proposing to stack one on top of the other in Los Angeles. The Commission felt that multi-level buildings were more suited to "traditional" retailers such as Gottschalks and Nordstroms. The Commission did, however, want to encourage the use of multi-level buildings in downtown and other specific commercial areas. The Commission voted 4-2-1 (Commissioners Aiken and Caruso voting no) to recommend that the / ,/V TA29-01 (Retail Size Ordinance) Page 5 retail size limit ordinance include a provision to allow larger retail establishments in the C-C and C- R zones to exceed the 110,000 square foot limitation by up to 25% with a ground floor maximum of 80,000 square feet, if the building includes multiple floors and meets the following criteria: 1) the proposed retail use will serve the community as a whole and the nature of the use requires a larger size building in order to function; 2) the building, in which the use is to be located, is designed to respect the scale of development in the surrounding area; and 3) the new building is designed to comply with the adopted design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. By limiting the ground floor to 80,000 square feet, the building would be multi-story and have potential for split-levels and architectural articulation. This option would favor "traditional" retailers such as department stores that frequently have multi-story buildings. Ordinance Alternatives The Council's previous direction was to prepare a draft ordinance limiting the size of large-scale retail establishments. Consistent with that direction, staff has focused on providing information on jurisdictions with ordinances limiting the building footprint or floor area. Attachment 6 is a list of California and national cities with such ordinances. Other cities have acted to limit the homogenizing effects of big chains through design guidelines, restrictions on trademark architecture and special use permits for formula fast-food restaurants and drive-through uses. Attachment 6 includes an excerpt from the publication titled Better Models For Superstores. Alternatives to Big-Box Sprawl by Constance E. Beaumont that shows how other jurisdictions have addressed "big box" stores and alternative ways to address the external impacts of these large buildings. Ordinance Exceptions and Exemptions Existing Retail Buildinzs The ordinance would impact existing retail establishments that exceed the adopted building size restrictions. The largest existing retail establishments in the City are: Gottschalks department store at 108,000 square feet, Copeland Sports at 102,440 square feet (includes both retail spaces), Sears at 75,000 square feet, Ralph's at 53,000 square feet, Vons at 52,000 square feet and Food-4-Less at 50,000 square feet. A 135,00-square foot Home Depot (presently under construction and approved for annexation) will be the largest retail establishment in the City. The Planning Commission was very concerned about the ordinance's impact on existing retail establishments. If the ordinance were adopted without exceptions for existing retail stores exceeding the size restrictions, an existing retail store would be allowed to continue, but the building housing that establishment would become nonconforming. City Code requires that all nonconforming structures be brought into compliance as soon as practical. Section 17.14.020 of the Zoning Regulations states: "A nonconforming structure, which is damaged to an extent of one-half or more of its replacement cost immediately prior to such damage, may be restored only if made to conform. " Therefore, if the Council did not grant an exception to the size requirements and the Gottschalks store suffered extensive fire damage, the retail building could be rebuilt but it would / rS TA29-01 (Retail Size Ordinance) Page 6 have to comply with the C-R zone size standards (60,000 sq. ft.). Under the proposed ordinance, large retail buildings that lawfully existed on the effective date of the ordinance would become legal nonconforming structures that could be reconstructed, repaired or altered as long as it is not enlarged beyond the gross floor area of the building that existed on the date the ordinance went into effect. The Commission also discussed the prospect of exempting existing large-scale retail establishments to avoid the creation of non-conforming structures and to allow the future expansion of these stores. However, it should be noted that granting a"blanket" exemption for these retail buildings would be contrary to the intent of the size ordinance. Exempting existing retail establishments from the size requirements would allow them to enlarge their buildings without regard of the adopted size requirements. The Planning Commission's intent was to allow these buildings to remain in their present locations, to allow them to be rebuild to their existing size, and to allow some expansion. The recommended ordinance exception and the adopted nonconforming regulations will allow that to happen. It should be noted that regulating the size of existing retail establishments would also become based on when an existing use was established rather than simply the zone that it is located in. This will add a layer of complexity to the development review process, which typically applies development standards based on zoning. Generally speaking, it is desirable to keep regulations as clear and simple as possible, rather than more complex. "Pipeline"Projects The Planning Commission is also recommending that any large-scale retail project with an existing or complete development permit application be exempted from the size limitations, but not the design and performance standards. According to City records only the Costco Warehouse store would qualify as a "pipeline" project. There are no formal proposals on the remaining two parcels of the Froom Ranch annexation. If the Council desires to exempt "pipeline" development from the size restriction, it should adopt Ordinance`B." FISCAL IMPACTS Approval or denial of the ordinance will have no direct effect on the City's funds. However, it should be noted that adopting the recommended ordinance might have impacts on the City's ability to attract certain retailers that, in the past, have been of interest to the City, from locating in the community. Adopting a retail size cap ordinance may discourage large-scale retail establishments and limit an existing retail establishment's ability to expand in the future to keep up with economic trends. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council could adopt the retail size cap ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and the CAO and deny the exemption for pipeline projects (Ordinance `B). Under this alternative, existing retail buildings would become legal nonconforming structures subject to the City's Nonconforming Regulations. / TA29-01 (Retail Size Ordinance) Page 7 2. The Council could adopt a retail size cap ordinance with a maximum size for all large-scale buildings irrespective of zoning. The Council would determine what is the approximate retail floor area or size cap. The Council was previously presented two ordinances setting retail floor area at 138,000 square feet and 110,000 square feet. Council could also set the limit lower or higher. 3. The Council could adopt an ordinance based on design standards similar to Fort Collins, Colorado. This alternative ordinance would not restrict building size, but would mandate special design requirements for large-scale stores over 45,000 square feet. The Council would determine the specific design standards and the appropriate building size. The Architectural Review Commission recently approved design standards for large-scale retail projects. City Council will be considering adoption of those standards at the same November 6, 2001 meeting. 4. The Council could adopt an ordinance with restrictions on trademark architecture for large-scale retail projects. 5. The Council could reject the draft ordinance finding it to be inconsistent with the General Plan. Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies are included as Attachment 7. The Council could also determine that existing local and state regulations are adequate to address the physical and environmental effects of the large-scale retail projects. 6. The Council could continue action, if additional information is needed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1-Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 2-Minutes from the October 10, 2001 meeting Attachment 3-Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 10, 2001 Attachment 4-Parking Standards for California Cities Attachment 5-Parking.Standards for Large-Scale Retailers Attachment 6-List of Cities and Descriptions of Ordinances Attachment 7-Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies Attachment 8-Random Sample of Costco Warehouse Stores from Chris Ivey Attachment 9-Draft Ordinance"A"Approving a Retail Size Cap Attachment 10-Draft Ordinance`B"Exemptions for"Pipeline"Projects ✓Shoals/CC/TA29-01(CCReport3) 2- 7 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5322-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION REAFFIRMING ITS SUPPORT FOR THE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED RETAIL SIZE CAP ORDINANCE WITH CLARIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON BUILDING SIZE LIMIT IN THE C-N ZONING DISTRICT, MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THE EFFECTS OF RETAIL BUILDINGS WITH MULTIPLE FLOORS: TA 29-01 WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo City Council held a public hearing on September 4, 2001 to consider an ordinance amending the City's Zoning Regulations to establish a size limit on large-scale retail projects; and WHEREAS, the Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for evaluation of the effects of changing the building size limit in the C-N (Neighborhood- Commercial from 45,000 to 55,000 square feet, setting a maximum parking requirement or using alternative parking strategies, and using multi-level buildings for large-scale retail establishments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing October 10, 2001 for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Regulations to establish a maximum building size for large-scale retail uses; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994, sets forth goals, policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment; promote and enhance real property values; conserve the city's natural beauty; preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures; and WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the size of large-scale retail establishments presents unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police; fire and.public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores; and � g Resolution No. 5322-01 Attach�' ment 1 Page 2 WHEREAS, it is the City's goal to reduce the physical effects of large-scale retail structures on the community; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The Neighborhood-Commercial (CN) zoning district is intended to accommodate neighborhood-serving uses. A 45,000 square foot retail size limit supports most of the existing retail grocery stores in the C-N zone and supports the idea that these are neighborhood-serving uses. 2. Large-scale retail projects do not efficiently use land area and often exceed City Parking Requirements creating large paved parking areas in conjunction with the retail use. Establishing a parking maximum requirement will reduce the effects of these large paved parking lots. 3. Architectural design is an important factor is reducing the external effects of large- scale retail projects. The recently approved Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects work in concert with zoning and development standards to address the external effects of these retail developments. 4. The recommended retail size cap ordinance is based on gross floor area as defined in the City's Zoning Regulations. The recommended ordinance allows retail buildings with multiple floors to encourage efficient land use and infill development opportunities within the City. 5. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 6. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 7. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations). 8. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the �- 9 Resolution No. 5322-01 �.,�' Attachment 1 Page 3 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq. SECTION 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approve a retail site ordinance with a maximum building size limitation of 45,000 square feet in the C-N zoning district. On motion by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Aiken, Boswell, Caruso, Cooper, Osborne and Peterson NOES: Non REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Loh SECTION 3. Action. The. Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council find that the Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects work in concert with the zoning and development standards. On motion by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Boswell, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Aiken, Boswell, Caruso, Cooper, Osborne and Peterson NOES: Commissioners REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Loh SECTION 4. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve a retail size limit ordinance with a maximum parking requirement of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area for retail buildings over 45,000 square feet, with an exception to allow more spaces if multi-level parking structures are utilized. On motion by Commissioner Boswell, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Boswell, Cooper, Osborne and Peterson NOES: Commissioners Aiken and Caruso REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Loh SECTION 5. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve a retail size limit ordinance that includes a provision to allow larger retail establishments in the C-C (Central-Commercial) and C-R (Retail- Commercial) zones to exceed the 110,000 square foot limitation by up to 25% with a /D Resolution No. 5322-01 Attachment 1 Page 4 ground floor maximum of 80,000 square feet, if the building includes multiple floors and meets the following criteria: 1) the proposed retail use will serve the community as a whole and the nature of the use requires a larger size building in order to function; 2) the building, in which the use is to be located, is designed to respect the scale of development in the surrounding area; and 3) the new building is designed in strict compliance with the adopted design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. On motion by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Boswell, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Boswell, Cooper, Osborne and Peterson NOES: Commissioners Aiken and Cooper REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Loh The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10'hday of October 2001. onal isenar} , Secretary Planning Commission —ll 1 November 6, 2001 Agenda Item PH 7 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO SIZE LIMITATIONS FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES; TA 29-01 Attachment 2 Minutes of the October 10, 2001 Meeting will be distributed at a later time. / rJ� - Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT/ ITEM# I BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner (781-7170 MEETING DATE: October 10, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-Development Review FILE NUMBER: TA.29-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Retail Size Cap Ordinance establishing maximum building size for large-scale retail projects. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Make a recommendation to the City Council on what the retail size limit should be in the C-N zoning district,and whether a maximum parking requirement should be established for large- scale retail projects. BACKGROUND Situation On July 11, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 (Commissioners Caruso and Loh voting no and Commissioner Aiken was absent) to recommend City Council adoption of an ordinance establishing a size limit for large-scale retail establishments in the City of San Luis Obispo. The recommended ordinance would limit large retail establishments to 45,000 square feet in the C-N and C-T zones, and 60,000 square feet in the C-C, C-R and C-S zone with the possibility of going up to 110,000 square feet in the C-C and C-R zones if certain criteria are met. Those include: l) the proposed retail use will serve the community as a whole and the nature of the use requires a larger size building in order to function; 2) the building, in which the use is to be located, is designed to respect the scale of development in the surrounding area; and 3) the new building is designed to comply with the adopted design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. Existing large-scale commercial buildings (i.e. Copeland's, Gottschalks, Sears and Home Depot) and project proposals with complete planning applications prior to the effective date of the ordinance would be exempt from the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended ordinance is included as Attachment 2. The City Administrative Officer (CAO) recommended that the Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation with the exception that the building size limit in the C-N zone be increased from 45,000 to 55,000 square feet. By increasing the maximum building size in the C- N zone, the ordinance would not create non-conforming buildings, it would accept current and future industry standards for retail grocery stores, and it would not encourage grocery stores to relocate out of C-N zones to the C-R zones. The CAO recommended ordinance is included as Attachment 3. 9-/3 Retail Size Cap Ordinanc.. TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment Page 2 ent 3 On September 4, 2001, the City Council considered both the Planning Commission and CAO's recommendations. After lengthy discussion, the Council voted to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on changing the size limit in the C-N zone from 45,000 to 55,000 square feet and a maximum parking requirement for large-scale retail establishments. The Council also directed the Architectural Review Commission to address building proportions in the pending design standards for large-scale commercial projects. The Council will make the final decision on the retail size cap ordinance sometime in November 2001. EVALUATION 1. Retail Size Limit in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone City Council direction was to evaluate changing the C-N size limit from 45,000 to 55,000 square feet and to make a recommendation on the matter. As previously mentioned, the CAO is concerned that if the retail size cap in the C-N zone is too low, it may impact some of the existing grocery stores in the community (see Attachment 1). The City of San Luis Obispo has several retail grocery stores in the C-N zone that could be affected by the ordinance. They are: • 40,000-square foot Albertson's at the Laguna Village neighborhood center; • 30,000-square foot Albertson's at the Foothill Plaza; • 50,000-square foot Food-4-Less at the corner of South Higuera and Suburban Road.; and • 30,000-square foot Scolari's at the Scolaris/Rite Aid center. The following retail grocers are located in different zoning districts, but could be affected if their zoning classifications were modified. The City is in the process of updating the commercial zoning districts, which could result in some centers being redefined as neighborhood commercial. They are: • 19,000-square foot New Frontier's at University Square in the C-R zoning district; • 52,071-square foot Von's at Marigold Shopping Center in the C-S-PD zoning district; • 53,000-square foot Ralph's Market at Madonna Plaza in the C-R zoning district. A 45,000 square foot size cap in the C-N zoning district will cause the Food-4-Less building to become non-conforming and could cause the Von's store at Marigold to become non-conforming if that center's zoning is changed to Neighborhood-Commercial. It could also limit future expansion of the Albertson's stores in their current locations. A 55,000 square foot size cap would not create non-conforming buildings, and it would accept current and future industry standards for retail grocery stores. 7-i4 Retail Size Cap Ordinances TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 3 While smaller buildings would preserve the scale and character of these neighborhood centers, there are is a need for these existing retail stores to remain competitive by keeping up with current and future industry standards. Many of these existing retail stores anchor these neighborhood centers, and they may relocate if they are not allowed to expand to remain competitive. Grocery stores are allowable in the zones that allow 60,000 square foot retail buildings. This could potentially lead to vacancies in these existing neighborhood centers.. One could argue that the purpose of a retail size ordinance is to retain community scale and not cater to industry standards. However, the General Plan's goals are to provide neighborhood commercial services within one mile of every residence. If development standards require retail grocers to move to the C-R or C-C zones to have their desired stores, the development standards will work against the General Plan objective. The Planning Commission needs to decide if a 45,000 or 55,000 square foot size limit is appropriate for the C-N zoning district, and make a recommendation to the City Council. 2. Parking While most large-scale retail establishments are constructed as free-standing buildings on individual parcels, they are often situated in proximity to one another resulting in a grouping of big buildings and large areas of asphalt pavement. Based on Planning staffs experience, retailers often base their parking standards on peak shopping periods such as the holiday season, which tends to create parking demands in excess of City requirements. As such, municipalities often have the challenge of making sure that there is adequate parking to support a business and finding ways to minimize the visual impacts of large commercial parking lots.. Concerned with the impacts of "over-parked" sites, the Council directed the Planning Commission to consider ways of controlling. parking and to forward a recommendation on maximum parking requirements and/or alternative strategies. At its hearing, the Council discussed several alternatives ranging from establishing a maximum parking requirement to requiring the construction of a parking structure for those retail establishments wanting to exceed the City's minimum parking standards. Staff has also come up with some potential solutions to the parking issue. These concepts are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. Maximum Parking Standard The City could amend the Zoning Regulations to establish a maximum parking requirement for large-scale retail establishments. The City standard for general retail stores is one space per 300 square feet in all zoning districts, except for the C-C (Central Commercial)zone where one space per 500 square feet is the standard. Developments in the C-C zone can meet their parking requirements by: 1) providing on-site parking; 2) providing off-site parking within 500 feet of the proposed use; 3) participating in commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot; 4) participating in a parking district; 5) participating in an in-lieu fee program established by the City; or 6) any combination of these methods. It should be noted that City Code gives the City Council and Planning Commission the authority to determine the parking requirement for a Retail Size Cap OrdinanCL _ TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment $ Page 4 specific use through the use permit process. This authority would be reinforced under the proposed ordinance, which requires the Planning Commission to approve a use permit for large- scale retail establishments. City staff contacted several cities to get their parking requirements for general retail uses and to find out if they have any special requirements for large-scale retail establishments. California cities contacted included: Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Davis, Grover Beach, Lompoc, Monterey, Oxnard, Paso Robles, Salinas, Santa Cruz and Santa Maria. Other cities contacted included: Clermont, Florida; Roswell Georgia; Stratham, New Hampshire; Taos, New Mexico; Easton, Maryland; Rockville, Maryland. Most cities contacted do not have a maximum parking requirement for large retail establishments. With the exception of the City of Monterey, the cities have a minimum parking requirement of one space per 200 to 300 square feet of floor area. Monterey requires one parking space per 400 square feet for the first 1,000 square feet of floor area and one space for 500 square feet for floor area over 1,000 square feet. Staff also contacted several retail establishments including Nordstrom, Macy's, IKEA, Costco, Wal-Mart, Target and Home to find out if they had parking standards. Most retailers did not identify a specific parking requirement. Those with specific parking standards are: Home Depot at one space per 200 square feet of floor area; IKEA at 1,600 spaces minimum per store (about one space per 90 square feet); and Costco at 800 spaces minimum (approximately one space per 180 square feet). Based on these figures, most retailers have a higher parking demand than the City requires. Staff believes that there is merit to establishing a maximum parking standard for large retail uses. Limiting parking and using shared parking facilities would reduce the amount of asphalt pavement and improve a project's appearance. According to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, limiting onsite parking to volumes at or below the City's requirements would encourage employees and customers use alternative modes of transportation. The question is what that standard should be.. Is the City's current minimum standard (one space per 300 square feet) adequate or should it be revised to be a maximum parking requirement for these types of commercial uses? Is the C-C zone parking standard (one space per 500 square feet) appropriate for freestanding large developments given that they are often located on the City's outer edges? It should also be noted that the draft Airport Area Specific Plan is recommending a maximum parking rate of one space per 250 square feet in the future Business Park Zone. So the concept of maximum parking requirements is not new to the City. Those opposing a maximum parking requirement might argue that these retail businesses have a higher parking demand than the City's general parking standards (one space for every 300 square feet) and that limiting parking will impact their operations. Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 5 The Planning Commission needs to determine what is an appropriate parking standard and make a recommendation to the City Council. If the Commission recommends a maximum parking standard, the draft ordinance would be revised and presented to the City Council. Parking Structures and alternatives One idea put forth was to maintain the existing minimum parking standards, but to a provision that any large-scale retail establishment proposing parking in excess of that standard be required to construct a parking structure. In staff's opinion, requiring a developer to construct a parking structure would be a very expensive proposition that may be infeasible given the circumstances. There is also the possibility that the structure would create aesthetic impacts. While staff believes this approach would address many of the parking concerns, there is an issue as to whether a City can require a business to construct a parking structure.as part of a private development. Staff would not recommend implementation of this scheme. The Planning Commission needs to determine if this approach is feasible and whether to recommend it to the Council. If the Commission recommends this approach, the draft ordinance would be amended and presented to the City Council. Mandatory Parking Reduction The City could automatically grant large retail establishments on adjoining lots a parking reduction consistent with City Code. Under current standards, when two or more uses share common parking areas, the total number of parking spaces required may reduced by up to 30% (a 10% reduction for shared uses and a 20% reduction for mixed-uses) with the approval of an administrative use permit. Currently, parking reductions are done on a voluntary basis. Under this concept, large-scale retailers on the same or adjoining lots would have to combine parking facilities. Staff finds that this approach would achieve the City's goal to consolidate parking and to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities. Future development of the Froom Ranch commercial area would provide an excellent opportunity to consolidate parking in a central location to multiple retail businesses. The Planning Commission needs to determine if this is a valid approach to addressing parking concerns. If Commission recommends this approach, the retail size ordinance would be revised to reflect that decision and presented to the City Council. 3. Building Proportions and Design Standards A majority of the Council felt that they felt that site design, building proportions and detailing are the most important factors in addressing the external effects of large-scale retail projects. It has been asserted that proper design can insure that new buildings will not adversely affect the City's desired small town character. The Council directed the Architectural Review Commission �-l� Retail Size Cap OrdinancL__ TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 6 to address building proportions in the future design guidelines for large-scale developments. A copy of the draft guidelines is included for informational purposes only (see Attachment 3). The Commission should consider how these proposed design guidelines could work in concert with zoning and development standards to produce the desired quality in new development. 4. Ordinance Alternatives The Planning Commission and City Council have previously considered several alternatives for regulating the size of retail establishments. An additional alternative is expected to be presented to the City Council when the Commission's recommendations are brought back to the Council. Staff expects that the Council may consideration a variation to the Commission's recommended ordinance, in which retail establishments greater than 110,000 square feet could be considered if additional performance criteria are met. Such standards might include multiple floors, structured parking, on-site transit services, on-site housing or others as necessary for the City to achieve the General Plan goal of being the regional hub of retail services. The Commission may provide comments on this concept in anticipation of Council discussion. 5. Planning Commission's Role in Retail Size Ordinance Implementation After the Council hearing, Council member Muholland asked for clarification on which decision- making body would determine if a retail project in the C-C and C-R zones would be allowed to go up to 110,000 square feet. Staff believes that the Planning Commission would be the appropriate advisory body. An applicant would still have the right to appeal that decision to the City Council. If this is acceptable to the Planning Commission, staff will revise the ordinance before it returns to the City Council. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission may continue action, if additional information is needed. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other departments commented on the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Make a recommendation to the City Council on what the retail size limit should be in the C-N zoning district and whether a maximum parking requirement should be established for large- scale retail projects. Attachments 1. Map of Neighborhood Commercial Areas 2. Draft Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission 3. Draft Ordinance recommended by the CAO 4. Draft ARC Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects `71 g- Attachment 3 Neighborhood Commercial Centers Albertsons/New Frontiers -1 1 1 1 • -1 1_ _ I Scolari's Market Ralph /Laurel Lane Market , i - ♦ 1 f l' I ♦♦ 11 •_ I I L �� � � 1 1 1 1 1 1♦ �, Food 4 Less ''.; Albertson Vons I I 2 0 2 Miles Neighborhood Markets N I � ♦ City Limits 17-1 Draft 3 ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) Attachment AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS)TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES,TA 29-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25,2001, May 23, 2001 and July 11, 2001 to consider amendments and recommended approval of amendments to Title 17 of the City Municipal Code(Zoning Regulations)to establish a maximum building size for large-scale commercial buildings;and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 2001 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend relevant sections of the Central-Commercial(C-C), Retail-Commercial(C-R),Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N),Tourist-Commercial(C-T) and the Commercial-Service(C-S)zoning designations to limit the size of large retail stores(buildings)and to add performance standards;and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo is to establish a precise and detailed plan for the use of land in the City,based on the General Plan;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts;and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance wil from the City Council Ordinance NG( I (2001 series) Attachment 3 Page 2 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000,et seq.;and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994,sets forth goals,policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment promote and enhance real property values;conserve the city's natural beauty;preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character;and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures;and WHEREAS, the size of large-scale retail buildings pres que challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of li ,fate a ' ublic safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores;and F ri WHEREAS,it is the City's goal to re ce hep .sic l impact f large-scale retail structures on the community. NOW THEREFORE, ITAXNED.by touncil of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environm to a nation. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoni egulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(6)(3), and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council,after consideration of all the evidence makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics,ideal climate conditions,spectacular natural vistas,and dynamic natural features.The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development ��1 City Council Ordinance Nk J ! (2001 series) Page 3 Attachment 3 of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community,it is the policy of the Council to protect,maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms,and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives,policies,and programs of the General Plan,and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health,safety,and welfare. 5. The potential environmental impacts of p 'ed li - son commercial building size are insignificant. SECTION 3. Sections Amen fo i will sections.,of"Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as foll s: 17.38.020 (Neighbor d- jrcialrts hereby;ariiended by adding"G" to read as follows: G. Maximum But di St o r :1 eta lrsh ent(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gros flo n s excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.40.020(Retail-Commerc 1 ' ereby amended by adding"G" and "H" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection"H"and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area, if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or insignificant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. as City Council Ordinance 1 ._J` (2001 series) Page 4 Attachment 3 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.42.020 (Central-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and "H" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 1 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or in significant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to.function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in.strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.44.020(Tourist-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.46.020(Service-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding "G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 68,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by Section 17.16.035. 7o73 City Council Ordinance Nc (2001 series) Page 5 17.22.010,Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended to read as follows: AttaChmert 3 te 9:Uses Allowed by R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Zone Retail Salcs-convenience stores 23.2n A A A A D D Retail sales-indoor sales of A8 A A A A building materials and gardening supplies(hardware, floor and wall coverings,paint,glass stores)23,24 Retail sales-appliances, furniture, A8 A A A A musical instruments;data processing equipment,business, office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting goods,outdoor supply na" Y Retail sales-groceries. liquor and A A A PC specialized foods(bakery,meats, dairy items,etc.)?3�' p A D Retail sales-neighborhood grocery , A (See also Sec. 17.08.095)23 ' Retail sales-gen'l merchandise 23,2' Nj (drug,discount,department,and variety stores)(See also"Retail sales-warehouse stores) j -15,000 square feet or less gross .f floor area per establishment ., "`� A A A -15,001 to 60,000 square feet gross �, PC A-R, 10 floor area per establishment ` -more than 60,000 square feet PC gross floor area per establishment Retail sales and rental—specialties A$ A A (shoe stores,clothing stores, book/record/videotape stores,to), stores,gift shOPS)23.24 Retail Sales-Warehouse stores -45,000 square feet or less gross PC D D floor area per establishment -more than 45,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC PC PC City Council Ordinance (2001 series) Page 6 Attachment 3 Notes: 23. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not exceed the retail.size limits specified below: • 45,000 square feet of gross floor area in the C-N and C-T zoning districts; • 60,000 square feet of gross floor area in the C-S zoning district; and • 60,000 square feet of gross floor area in the C-C and C-R zoning districts, with the potential to go up to 110,000 square feet if certain performance standards are met. Those standards are specified in Sections 17.40.020 and 17.42.020. "Gross floor area,"means the total area enclosed within a building,including closets,stairways and utility and mechanical rooms,measured from the exterior walls(Section 17.04.220). 24. A large-scale retail commercial building is defined as the construction of a single structure for the express purpose of accommodating one retail tenant on one parcel. Commercial uses in different structures separated by a public right-of-way shall not be considered the same building. When a large-scale commercial use is located within a multi-tenant building, the retail tenant's space shall define the "building." SECTION 4. The following section of Chap 1 v nicipa de are hereby added to read as follows: y 17.16.035 Size limits on Large-Sc -Re i Iishment/S" A. In the C-N and C-T zones, ret ' to 1 ism n rshall`exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area. B. In the C-C, C-R an -S no ellail est 'lishment shall exceed 60,000 square feet of total gross floor area. In t C- a Z. es, a retail structure may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor ea, c plies with the criteria specified in sections 17.40.020H and 17.42.020H. C. Exceptions to Retail Building Size Limits 1. When an otherwise lawful retail establishment existed on the effective date of the size limits, such structure shall be considered a development non-conformity but may be continued, structurally altered,repaired or reconstructed so long as it is not increased,extended or enlarged beyond the gross floor area of the building that existed on that date. To the extent practicable, the design guidelines for large-scale retail projects shall be applied to any alteration, reconstruction or repair that takes place after the effective date of the size Limits. 2 a?5 City Council Ordinance No. '-'k2001 series) \- _ Attachment 3 Page 7 - — - 2. The size limits in this section shall not be applied to any development or portion of a development that iscomple e bered y an the Community Deovelopmentpermit Direct r developrior to�heneffect effective permit application deemed p Y date of the size limitations. SECTION 5. Summa . A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5) days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the _day of__12001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by da of 1200 1,on the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the Y the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 'r Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: f Lee Price,City Clerk *`R APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,City Attorney TA29-0I(OrdinanceD) - Draft Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS)TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES,TA 29-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25,2001, May 23, 2001 and July 11,2001 to consider amendments and recommended approval of amendments to Title 17 of the City Municipal Code(Zoning Regulations)to establish a maximum building size for large-scale commercial buildings;and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 2001 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend relevant sections of the Central-Commercial(C-C),Retail-Commercial(C-R),Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N),Tourist-Commercial(C-T) and the Commercial-Service(C-S)zoning designations to limit the size of large retail stores(buildings)and to add performance standards;and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo is to establish a precise and detailed plan for the use of land in the City,based on the General Plan;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts;and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the �r City Council Ordinance Iv--- ' (2001 series) Page 2 Attachment 3 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000,et seq.;and WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994,sets forth goals,policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment;promote and enhance real property values;conserve the city's natural beauty;preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character;and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures;and WHEREAS,the size of large-scale retail buildings present unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police,fire and public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores;and WHEREAS,it is the City's goal to reduce the physical impacts of large-scale retail structures on the community. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council,after consideration of all the evidence makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics,ideal climate conditions,spectacular natural vistas,and dynamic natural features.The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development Cs City Council Ordinance N.. (2001 series) �/ Attachment 3 Page 3 of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community,it is the policy of the Council to protect,maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms,and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives,policies,and programs of the General Plan,and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health,safety,and welfare. 5. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed limits on commercial building size are insignificant. SECTION 3. Sections Amended: The following sections of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows: 17.38.020 (Neighborhood-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 55,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.40.020(Retail-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and"H"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection"H"and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area,if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or insignificant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. ��9 1 City Council Ordinance i�� (200i series) Attachment 3 Page 4 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.42.020 (Central-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and"H"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area,if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or in significant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.44.020(Tourist-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.46.020(Service-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by Section 17.16.035. City Council Ordinance 1. (2001 series) Page 5 Attacni-nera 3 17.22.010,Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended to read as follows: Table 9:Uses Allowed by R-T R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Zone Retail Sales-convenience stores) A A A A D D Retail sales-indoor sales of As A A A A building materials and gardening supplies(hardware,floor and wall coverings,paint,glass stores)',j Retail sales-appliances,furniture, As A A A A musical instruments;data processing equipment,business, office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting goods,outdoor supply J Retail sales-groceries,liquor and A A A PC specialized foods(bakery,meats. dairy items,etc.)'[ Retail sales-neighborhood grocery A A D (See also Sec. 17.08.095)'23 Retail sales-gen'l merchandise u (drug,discount,department,and variety stores)(See also"Retail sales-warehouse stores) -15,000 square feet or less gross floor area per establishment A A A -15,001 to 60,000 square feet gross PC A A floor area per establishment -more than 60,000 square feet PC D gross floor area per establishment Retail sales and rental—specialties As A A (shoe stores,clothing stores, book/record/videotape stores,toy stores,gift shops); Retail Sales-Warehouse stores u 45,000 square feet or less gross PC D D floor area per establishment -more than 45.000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC PC PC 7-3) City Council Ordinance N_ (2001 series) Attachment 3 Page 6 Notes: 23. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not exceed the retail size limits established for each commercial zone district, see Sections 17.16.035, 17.38.020, 17.40.020,17.42.020, 17.44.020 and 17.46.020. A large-scale retail commercial building is defined as the construction of a single structure for the express purpose of accommodating one retail tenant on one parcel. Commercial uses in different structures separated by a public right-of-way shall not be considered the same building. When a large-scale commercial use is located within a multi-tenant building, the retail tenant's space shall define the "building." SECTION 4. The following section of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows: 17.16.035 Size limits on Large-Scale Retail Establishments 23. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not exceed the retail size limits established for each commercial zone, see Sections 17.16.035, 17.38.020, 17.40.020,17.42.020, 17.44.020 and 17.46.020. 24. Exceptions to Retail Building Size Limits 1. When an otherwise lawful retail establishment existed on the effective date of the size limits, such structure shall be considered a development non-conformity but may be continued, structurally altered,repaired or reconstructed so long as it is not increased,extended or enlarged beyond the gross floor area of the building that existed on that date. To the extent practicable, the design guidelines for large-scale retail projects shall be applied to any alteration, reconstruction or repair that takes place after the effective date of the size limits. 2. The size limits in this section shall not be applied to any development or portion of a development that is covered by an approved development permit or a development permit application deemed complete by the Community Development Director prior to the effective date of the size limitations. SECTION 5. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(3 0)days after its final passage. 7-3a City Council Ordinance P (2001 series) Attachment 3 Page 7 INTRODUCED on the_day of ,2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,2001,on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G.Jorgensen,City Attorney TA29-01(OrdinanceD) ?-33 Attachment 3 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guid, large-Scale Retail Projects Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects The City of San Luis Obispo welcomes retail commercial development projects that are pedestrian-oriented,of"human scale,"and reflect the architectural styles and features common in the City's most attractive commercial areas. Large-scale, monolithic "big-box" structures surrounded by extensive parking lots are not considered acceptable. These guidelines describe the City's expectations for quality and excellence in the design of large-scale retail projects. For the purposes of these guidelines, "large-scale retail projects" are those with an individual building in excess of 40,000 square feet. A. Use of guidelines. These design guidelines will be used by the Architectural Review Commission in the review of large-scale retail projects(additions,remodeling,relocation, or new construction). 1. The design elements of each project(including site design,architecture,landscaping, signs,and parking design) will be reviewed on a comprehensive basis. The City's other design guidelines dealing with signs,landscaping,and parking shall also be addressed whenever applicable. 2. The ARC may interpret these design guidelines with some flexibility in their application to specific projects, as not all design criteria may be workable or appropriate for each project. In some circumstances,one guideline may be relaxed to facilitate compliance with another guideline determined by the ARC to be more important in the particular case. The overall objective is to ensure that the intent and spirit of the design guidelines are followed. B. Site planning. Project site planning should emphasize pedestrian-oriented features,even though most customer trips to these facilities may be by auto. 1. The layout of buildings and parking on the site should emphasize a Q •x i strong relationship to adjoining streets, and encourage pedestrian r circulation and access between the w buildings and the.street. Buildings c should generally be parallel to (n adjoining streets. Buildings should T be placed near the street frontage on z streets with slower traffic speeds 2 - and a pedestrian orientation, but may be located farther from a wide street with higher traffic speeds. Given the local climate, the placement of buildings should also MAJOR STREET consider solar orientation, and the protection of outdoor pedestrian Figure 1 - Emphasize Relationship with Street, areas from the wind. See Figure 1. Locate Most Parking to the Side or Rear of Building October 2001 1 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guide. large-Scale RetaaYV aehment 3 2. Site planning should include a common outdoor use area or focal point with public amenities such as a water feature, benches, landscaped areas, public square, etc. Projects with two or more structures should group the buildings to define this space. See Figure 2. - 3. When the site is located on a street �}�� .`< x , or road identified as scenic in the _ Circulation or Open Space Element, the building layout should also provide views through the propertyfl to the background hills and/or other natural features highlighted Figure 2-Create a Focal Point by the Circulation or Open Space Element. 4. Building walls visible from Highway 101 should be stepped instead of appearing as a single continuous plane, and allow for clusters of evergreen trees and other extensive plantings in the foreground. See Figure 6(page 6). C. Parking areas. Parking lots should be designed to be equally pedestrian and vehicular oriented,as follows. See Figure 3. 1. Location and design of parking. Parking should not be the dominant visual element of a site. Large,expansive paved areas between the building and the street are to be avoided in favor of smaller multiple fields separated by landscaping and buildings, or located to the sides and rear of buildings. No more than 50 percent of the parking required for a building may be located between the building and the street. 2. Landscaping. Parking areas should include substantial amounts of landscaping, including trees planted in an"orchard"layout. See Figure 3. 3. Pedestrian routes. Safe and direct pedestrian routes should be provided through parking areas to primary entrances, and designed as noted under "Pedestrian Circulation." 4. Overflow and employee parking. Where appropriate because of site characteristics, surrounding land uses, and project site planning, parking areas intended for employees and peak-season overflow may be allowed to have screening perimeter landscaping only,with no internal plantings,provided that these parking areas are located behind the main structures and not readily visible from streets or residential areas. 5. Shopping carts. Parking areas shall include shopping cart corrals where carts can be dropped-off without obstructing vehicle or pedestrian traffic movement,or being left in landscape planter areas. October 2001 2 n 7 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guit rs-Large-42cwhM 0,ws Canopy ove =r � r bra p ng / a 15 ft.min. '�" ' �'ft(ml Protected Pedestrian / Path from Street to Primary Entrance Access i Figure 3-Examples of Parking Lot and Pedestrian Circulation Features D. Pedestrian circulation and amenities. It is the nature of large retail uses that most customers arrive by car and make purchases that could not be carried home by foot or bike. Nevertheless, the large parking fields in these projects cause much of the customer's experience to be as a pedestrian, often walking long distances from car, to entrance and back. Safe accommodation for pedestrians is essential and must be an integral part of site design. 1. Sidewalks at least eight feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. 2. Sidewalks must be provided along the full length of the building along any facade with a customer entrance, and along any facade abutting a parking area. The sidewalks must be located at least six feet from the facade to provide area for landscaping,except where the facade incorporates pedestrian-oriented features such as pedestrian entrances or ground floor windows. Sidewalks should be eight feet wide,exclusive of any area planned for outdoor display or storage. The sidewalks should have wells for canopy trees at 30-foot intervals along the sidewalk edge adjacent to parking areas or vehicle access ways,so that the combination of building wall,sidewalk,and trees provide an enhanced pedestrian orientation. See Figure 4. October 2001 3 2-3L City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidc. -large-Scale Qment 3 3. Pedestrian walkways within the site should provide a Display Windows weather protection feature }� such as an awning within 15 ' feet of all customer entrances. .%r`— See Figure 4. 4. Pedestrian walkways within ? the site must be distinguished from driving surfaces through Sidewalk, the use of special pavers, Full Length bricks, or colored/textured of Bldg concrete to enhance pedestrian Entrance' safety and the attractiveness of the walkways. Pedestrian circulation in parking areas should be parallel to traffic "WeathP,�r_Protec flow toward building entrances,and separated from 1 ` drive aisles within 50 feet of Figure 4-Pedestrian Walkways&Weather Protection entrances. Sidewalk landings should be provided and extended between parking spaces where needed to connect pedestrians to walkways. See Figure 3. October 2001 4 3/ Aftachment 3 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guu s-large-Scale Retail Projects E. Building design. Building design shall be site-specific,and incorporate design themes and features reflecting San Luis Obispo's character and history. Building details should relate to the scale of pedestrians as well as passing motorists. The tendency of many"big-box" retail chains is to replicate a corporate or generic aesthetic, often treating the building elevations much like large,scale-less billboards. The lack of human scale and absence of architectural character or local connection serve to emphasize a disconnection between the chain store and the community. These conventional approaches to large-scale retail design are unacceptable in San Luis Obispo. Canopy over Cart Storage ; YT`"_ . ,�} �.i Tyr x rs^♦ 1 r„ i ` l - Covered Store R - Entrance � r Rich Material Textures (eg.wood,stone) Pedestrian Walkway s� Figure 5-Examples of Building Design Features 1. Entrances. Each side of a principal building facing a public street should feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting streets,this requirement should apply only to two sides of the building. The use of a corner entrance will satisfy the entrance requirement for only one side of the building. Customer entrances must be clearly defined and highly visible,with features such as canopies or porticos,arcades,arches,wing walls,and integral planters. See Figure 5. 2. Exterior wall materials. Predominant exterior building materials must be of high quality. Examples of these materials include brick, wood, stone, tinted/textured October 2001 5 7-38 City of San Luis Obispo ( Design Guide -Large-Stale Re1at %/e stucco, and tile accents. Smooth or split-faced concrete masonry units, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels should generally be avoided for expansive wall surfaces,but may be appropriate in limited areas as building accents. See Figure 5. a. Building walls should incorporate the same quality and level of detail of ornamentation on each elevation visible from a public right-of-way. b. Building facade details and materials should be authentic,and integrated into building design,and should not be or appear as artificial"glued/tacked-on" features,such as trellises that do not support plant materials,encouraging the perception of low quality. See also guidelines E.3.c below regarding wall design details. 3. Wall design. All building walls,especially those visible from public roadways or residential areas should be designed to break up the appearance of a box-like structure. See Figure 6. • C. Figure 6-Break-up the Appearance of a Box-Like Structure a. Facade articulation. Include extensive facade articulation in the form of horizontal and vertical design elements to provide variations in wall plane and surface relief,including providing a variety of surface textures,recesses and projections along wall planes. Facades greater than 100 feet in length should incorporate recesses or projections at least 20 feet deep along at least 30 percent of the length of the facade. Ideally, these recesses or projections should accommodate secondary uses/liner shops,and/or reflect the different internal functions of the store. See Guideline E.6 (page 9),and Figures 6 and 7. October 2001 6 7-3q Attachment 3 City of San Luis Obispo r�' Design Guido 0 Large-Scale Retail Projects VERTICAL WALL ARTICULATION: ROOF LINES: LOCATION OF SECONDARY SHOPS: HEIGHT OF BUILDING WALLS SHOULD SHOULD BE VARIED TO BREAK UP SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH WINDOWS BE VARIED SO VERTICAL MASS IS DIVIDED VISUAL MASS OF THE BUILDING WHILE AND SEPARATE ENTRANCES TO PROVIDE INTO HUMAN SCALED BUILDING ELEMENT CONCEALING ALL ROOF EQUIPMENT ADDITIONAL HUMAN SCALE TO THE BUILDING i I� 1' f Figure 7-Examples of Wall Features b. Ground floor windows. Ground floor windows are highly encouraged. These should ideally provide pedestrians with views into the building, but even display windows can improve the pedestrian experience of the building at the street or sidewalk level. See Figure 8. C. Design details. A variety of building and wall features should be used, in ways that avoid a cluttered appearance. These may include varying colors, reveals, an external wainscot or bulkhead at the building base to reduce apparent bulk, cornices and parapet details, and moldings. The features should employ a variety of materials as appropriate for the architectural style. See also guideline E.2 above regarding exterior materials. Bulkheads should be constructed of a durable material other than stucco,such as tile,brick,rock,or pre-cast concrete. Windows,awnings,and arcades must total at least 60 percent of the facade length abutting a street. See Figure 8. d. Corporate identification. Colors or logos identified with an individual company should be employed as building accent features,and not used as the main or dominant architectural feature of any wall. e. Colors. Large areas of bright, intense colors should generally be avoided. While more subdued colors usually work best for large facade areas,brighter accent colors may be appropriate for trim, windows, doors, and other key architectural elements: Bold stripes of color are not an adequate substitute for architectural detailing. October 2001 '/^ 7 7 /G/ Attachment 3 City of San Luis Obispo Design Guia �s-Large-Scale Retail Projects A VARY ROOF LINE ,T1 't. VARY VERTICAL HEIGHTS ' .d,,ku i Qq; IVI _ I ING MASS ^•:i�,-• ^_ Ia INT CT HUMAN LED I ELEMEN .BOTH ^ HOR¢O ALB Figure 8-Facade Articulation,Building and Wall Features,Windows,Vertical Wall Articulation 4. Vertical wall articulation. The height of building walls facing streets or on-site pedestrian areas should be varied so that the vertical mass is divided into distinct, human-scaled elements. a. Except on a pedestrian-oriented public street where buildings are at the back of the sidewalk,structures over 20 feet in height(typical for structures of two stories or more) should step-back the building mass at least five feet for the portions of the structure above 14 feet(or the height where an actual second story begins)to provide visual variation. b. The facade of the areas stepped-back above the actual or apparent first floor should include detailed building articulation with windows, eaves, and decorative details such as tiles, wood trim, etc. as appropriate. It is also important that the facade below the step-back have a substantial structural appearance,and not simply appear as an awning"tacked-on"to the building. C. Building facades that are tall for no functional reason, have little surface articulation or relief,and are simply intended to provide high,visible surfaces for tenant signage are not appropriate. 5. Roof lines. The roof lines should also be varied to break up the mass of the building. Pitched roofs with roof overhangs proportional to the scale of the adjoining building wall are encouraged. Major roof-mounted equipment should not be visible from off the site. Cornices and decorative parapets should be utilized to conceal flat roofs and to screen any roof-mounted mechanical equipment. The height of mechanical equipment shall not exceed that of the parapets or other roof features intended to October 2001 8 -4l Attachment 3 City of San Luis Obispo i Design Guid-A-Large-Scale Retail Projects screen the equipment. Enclosures,blinds, or other architectural treatment may be necessary to screen roof equipment visible from residences or public areas. See Figure 8. 6. Location of secondary uses. Secondary uses or departments including pharmacies, photo finishing/development,snack bars,dry cleaning,offices,storage,etc.,should be oriented to the outside of the building by projecting them outward or recessing them inward. This includes providing the individual uses with separate entrances and windows facing the outside of the building. The intent is to break up the appearance of the large,primary building with more human-scale elements. Food courts/bars should provide indoor and sheltered outdoor eating areas with tables, chairs,umbrellas,etc. See Figures 9 and 10. MAJOR TENANT .NEER IXAM NANIT E XY fcnuaq=�k =177= Piz Figure 9-Break-up Facade with Secondary Uses i SECONDARY STORE ENTRIES MAJOR STORE ENTRANCE Figure 10-Break-up Facade with Secondary Uses 7. Design continuity. Large-scale retail projects shall incorporate elements to visually unify the buildings and signage without creating monotony. Buildings on separate October 2001 9 c7 City of San Luis Obispo Design Gui&s-large-Scale Retail Yroig9ch m 2nt 3 pads should maintain the overall architectural character of the site,but at the same time architectural variety is encouraged. F. Loading areas.Loading docks,trash collection areas,outdoor storage,and similar facilities should be incorporated into the overall design of the building and landscaped,so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained, and out of view from adjacent properties and streets. Any screening materials must be of the same quality and appearance as those used on the building itself. G. Landscaping. Landscaping that complements and is in scale with the building should be provided adjacent to structures. Landscaping should include evergreen trees,shrubs and ornamental landscaping(and berms where appropriate)with all landscape areas having a minimum width of six feet. Landscaping should be used to create a focal point near front building entrances. Sidewalks and other walkways should also be integrated with landscape areas around building base and in parking lot areas. Trees should be planted in notable clusters within larger planting areas, and not exclusively in lines along building facades. H. Outdoor lighting. The design, size, and placement of outdoor lighting fixtures on buildings and in parking lots should be in keeping with the architectural style of the buildings. More, smaller-scale parking lot lights instead of fewer, overly tall and large parking lot lights should be installed. Outdoor light fixtures mounted on building walls should relate to the height of pedestrians and not exceed eight to 10 feet. All light fixtures should be directed downward and shielded so that the light source itself is not visible. I. Signs. 1. Proposed large-scale retail projects shall include a comprehensive program that effectively integrates signage into the project design. 2. Signs for these projects,and the buildings themselves,should not be designed to be freeway-oriented. 3. Along with typical auto-oriented wall and freestanding signage, permanent, pedestrian-oriented window,awning,projecting,and suspended signs should also be provided. October 2001 10 . ._ r/ -/_//� Attachment 4 Parking Requirements for California Jurisdictions. Minimum Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements Requirements (Sq. ft.) (%) 10 Arroyo Grande, CA 1/250 1-tree/5 parking spaces tascadero, CA 1/250 10 Davis, CA 1/300 10 to 20 Grover Beach, CA 1/250 10 Lompoc, CA 1/250 No percentage requirement. 1/400 for first 1000; Monterey, CA 1/500 for over 1000. No percentage requirement. Oxnard, CA 1/225 No percentage requirement. No percentage requirement; Paso Robles, CA 1/250 25 ft. landscaping setback. Salinas, CA 1/300 10 No percentage requirements. Santa Barbara, CA 1/250 1-tree/5 parking spaces. Santa Cruz, CA 1/250 110 Santa Maria, CA 1/250 115 Parking Requirements for other U.S Jurisdictions. Minimum Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements(Sq. ft. Requirements No percentage Clermont, FLA 1/200 requirements. 10 At least 1 tree in every Roswell, GA 1/250 50 sq. ft. of parking lot. Stratham, NH 1/200 10 O sq. ft of landscaping/parking space. Taos, NM 1/200 1-tree/4 parking spaces. 1/200 Do not allow Big Box Rockville, MD development. 10 No percentage Easton, MD 1/100 flexible requirements. North Elba, NY lWill call back Walpole, NH ILeft message Weds. 10:40 a.m. Attachment-5 Department Store vs. Big Box Research ' Nordstrom Contact: Joanne or Shasha Richardson in PR (206-373-3030) • Smallest store: 71,000 sq. ft. in Salem, OR • Customer entrances: unknown • Parking requirement: unknown Macy's Contact: Reina Neiman in PR (415-393-3455) • Smallest store: 100,000 sq. ft. in Redding, CA-"small store strategy" • Customer entrances: unknown • Parking requirement: unknown IKEA Contact: George Fuentes, Building Team (310-217-8005) • Smallest store: 147,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit per store • Parking requirement: 1,600 spaces minimum per store COSTCO Contact: Todd Bartok(425-427-7553) • Smallest store (last 5 years): 138,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit per store • Parking requirement: 800 spaces minimum for California stores WAL-MART Contact: Amy in PR(501-273-4314) • Smallest store(s): 29,500 sq. ft. in OK, TN, MO ("neighborhood markets") • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit per store • No specific parking requirement TARGET Contact: Mary Morelli in PR(612-304-0701) • Smallest store: No specific data but the average store is 126,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit per store except Superland w/2 • No specific parking requirement In the past, Target has constructed stores between 80,000 and 90,000 square feet. Home Depot Contact: Chuck in PR(714-940-3699) • Smallest store: No specific data but the average store is 105,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit unless there is a"garden center" • Parking requirement: 500 to 600 spaces average per store Attachment 6 Comparison of Other Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Population Ordinance Retail Size Largest Retail Cap Building California, Arroyo Grande /5. 851 Yes 102,500 SF 102,500 SF California, Atascadero Z(o,yis No -- 135,000 SF California, Davis"' 60 30$ No -- 40,000 SF California, Grover Beach /3,061 No -- 80,000 SF California, Lompoc AU1101 No -- 125,000 SF California, Monterey 14 1 61q No -- 35,000 SF California, Oxnard /¢0,MR No -- 125,000 SF California, Paso Robles', *&31 000 No -- 125,000 SF California, Salinas /51,0060 No -- N/A California, Santa Barbara 9Z s No -- N/A California, Santa Cruz 51593 No -- 122,500 SF California, Santa Maria"' Y13 No -- 135,000 SF Connecticut, Tolland 13 j/y( Yes 52,000 SF Connecticut, Wilton_ 17, 633 Yes 30,000 SF Florida,Clermont JU Yes 100,000 SF -- Georgia, Roswell ?1,33Y Yes 100,000 SF Idaho, HaileCUDYes 36,000 SF Maryland, Easton // 462 Yes 65,000 SF Maryland, Rockville '171 38 9 Yes 65,000 SF Massachusetts, Westfordj 20inq Yes 60,000 SF Montana, Bozeman 27.504 Yes 5,000 SF New Hampshire, Stratham 355 Yes 80,000 SF New Hampshire, Walpole 3 Yes 40,000 SF New Mexico, Taos p 0 Yes 80,000 SF New York, East Hamptonj 19,;19 Yes 15,000 SF New York,North Elba gJ641 Yes 40,000 SF New York, Skaneateles 313 Pennsylvania, Mount Joy »IZ Z8L Yes 100,000 SF Notes: 1. California Cities considered comparable to the City of San Luis Obispo. 2. City does not have a retail size cap, but has adopted some restrictions on large retail stores. 3. Better Models For Superstores, Alternatives to Big-Box Sprawl by Constance E. Beaumont contains a brief description of ordinance. �tb Attachment g San Luis Obispo County: In April of 2000, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance limiting the floor area that a large warehouse retailer can dedicate for the sale of non-taxable goods. The County's ordinance limits non- taxable items to no more than three percent of the floor area for retail trade uses of 90,000 to 139,999 square feet, two percent for 140,000 to 250,000 square feet and one percent for stores exceeding 250,000 square feet. City ofArroyo Grande: The City of Arroyo Grande adopted an ordinance in July of 1999. Arroyo Grande's ordinance limits non-taxable items to no more than three percent of the floor area for retail trade uses of 90,000 to 139,999 square feet, two percent for 140,000 to 250,000 square feet and one percent for establishments exceeding 250,000 square feet. The City has since adopted an ordinance limiting the overall size of warehouse retailers to 102,500 square feet(the size of their Wal-Mart). City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles): In March of 1999, the City of Paso Robles adopted an ordinance limiting non-taxable items to no more than eight percent (8%) of the floor area for retail trade uses exceeding 90,000 square feet. City of Santa Maria: In October of 1997, the City of Santa Maria adopted an ordinance limiting non-taxable items to no more than eight percent (8%) of the floor area for retail trade uses exceeding 90,000 square feet. City of Davis, California: In April 2000, the City of Davis adopted an ordinance limiting the size of food stores to 40,000 square feet and establishing performance standards for food stores in Commercial Neighborhood (C-N). City of Fort Collins, Colorado: In January 1995, the City of Fort Collins adopted design guidelines for all retail stores over 25,000 square feet and include requirements relating to visual interest for the structure; providing amenities such as patios and seating areas; providing sidewalks linking the stores to transit stops and Street crossing; dearly defining the entrance to stores; and placing parking in a location other than in front of the store's facade and the abutting street, among others. Other Examples of Design Modifications • In Santa Monica, California, Toys R Us built a new 55,000 square foot building with a two-color brick fagade with a four-story limestone clad tower on the comer. It also has display windows and a stainless steel canopy. The store modified its original color scheme and reduced the size of the sign letter from six to four feet high. • In downtown Chicago, Toys It Us built a 45,000-square foot store with architectural treatments that included a cast stone fagade, medallions just beneath the cornice, and a two-story wall of windows showcasing the stores products. • Vista West in San Diego. Kmart altered its design by breaking up the building's exterior fagade so that the big box structure looks less intimidating and more interesting to pedestrians. 7-q 7 ALTERNATNES TO $IG-BOX SPRAWL r.. •� $.t �►I�iIQI.I '. � C� �.� •[��r' t o Attachment 6 STEPS COMMUNITIES CAN TAKE TO PREVENT BIG-BOX SPRAWL MANY PEOPLE NEVER IMAGINED that retail stores would ever get as big as they are today. It is therefore not surprising that many local public officials. are ill-prepared to negotiate with large developers and national retailers for projects that preserve the distinctive local identity of their communities and harmonize with the landscape. Many public officials actually think they have no option other than to accept "big box" sprawl or lose the hoped-for tax revenues and jobs to a neigh- boring community. In fact, a number of planning tools exist to help communities protect their down- towns against sprawl and to ensure that the "big box" stores respect the landscape. These tools include zoning bans against "sprawl locations" • retail square-footage or size caps • moratoria on development • design standards • review of developments with regional impacts • withdrawal of subsidies for sprawl • local business retention zones • impact fees • mitigation of adverse impacts Below are some examples illustrating the application of these tools by communities seeking to save historic resources, contain-sprawl, preserve local community character, and protect taxpayer investments in existing downtowns. Zoning Bans Against "Sprawl Locations" While eleven states` have enacted comprehensive, statewide growth management laws to discourage sprawl-type development, most states have not done so and many proba- bly won't. Are communities in these states powerless to contain sprawl? Not at all. Consider the case of Hailey, Idaho. Hailey,Idaho Hailey is a small town of about 4,500 people. In the late 1980s,Hailey's political lead- ership could see that sprawl-type development would probably occur on the outskirts of town unless action were taken. Led by former Mayor Keith Roark,the city council amended its comprehensive plan in 1990 to contain sprawl. More specifically,the plan • limited new commercial activity to the downtown area; • required that land already annexed into the city be developed before more land could be annexed; BETTER MODELS for SUPERSTORES 35 r1-5'0 • called for the creation of a historic district to protect the city's past, and Att3Chf71@nt $ • required fiscal impact studies for new developments to determine whether they would generate sufficient tax revenues to defray public costs necessary to support them. Three years later, the city "downzoned" land on Hailey's periphery by putting new zoning restrictions on the commercial use of that land. Businesses deemed compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods continued to be allowed, but those likely to prove disruptive— heavy traffic generators, for example—were not. A property owner who wanted to develop his land for sprawl-type development sued the city, alleging that the downzoning was "arbitrary and capricious," an "invalid exercise of the police power," tantamount to "protectionism" for downtown merchants from competition, and an unconstitutional "taking" of private property without just compensation. (Homeowners living nearby saw their property rights and values as seriously threatened by the property owner seeking to sell out for large, sprawl-type development.) On September 25, 1995,the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the city of Hailey's down- zoning action. The court rejected the property owner's argument that a mere reduction in property values caused by the downzoning was an unconstitutional "taking" of pri- Downtown Hailey, Idaho. vate property, noting that even under the revised ordinance,the property owner could still develop his land for business purposes. The court also rejected the "protectionism" argument: "Determining where particular business uses shall be allowed to expand in a community is normally an appro- priate exercise of the police power." Finally, the court upheld the validity of zoning rules designed to protect the economic health of a downtown: "Preserving aesthetic values and the economic viability of a community's down- town business core can be a proper zoning purpose."" Skaneateles,New York Skaneateles, New York, a small town of about 7,500, took advantage of a moratorium on large-scale develop- ment to prepare a comprehensive plan and zoning ordi- nance that protea the village core. (See p.40.) Enacted in 1996, the plan-states: Tourism is an increasingly important part of the local econ- omy, but it is recognized that the basic day-to-day need for goods and services must also be met. Rather than estab- lishing competing shopping centers in the Town to provide basic goods and services,the Village commercial center (which has been the traditional focus of retail sales) should !, remain the center for shopping in the community. Support will be given to programs that will maintain the retail shopping center in the village center and improve its range of services, its convenience and its.attractiveness. M The plan's section on retail commercial areas states: It is proposed that the existing village downtown commer- cial center be maintained and strengthened as the principal retail shopping district for the Skaneateles community. It s is also proposed that every effort be made to keep conve- nience uses such as postal services,groceries and pharma- cies in the retail center. 36 —S� The plan allows "highway service commercial areas" that contains commperci T n� businesses that are not normally considered to be compatible with the smaller scale, pedestrian-oriented retail shopping environment of the Village Center. The intent of[such areas] is to provide for business activities that supplement, rather than displace,downtown commerce...[T]he Town and Village of Skaneateles seek to limit highway commercial development to what is essential for servicing the local community. New businesses [in the highway commercial service areas] should follow strict architectural guidelines, including the prohibition of trademarked architecture and drive-up windows. They should be encouraged to locate parking at the rear of the lot when this is practical. Following the local government's approval of this comprehensive plan, Skaneateles also imposed a cap of 45,000 square feet on the size of all retail establishments to ensure that the small town—and its small businesses—would not be overwhelmed by out-of-scale development projects. ' Stated Public y �ttic�luyd7''�vph`'i•iSpo°� �u- � `cic+ts . .�Code � '�•'-�+.y..+cr,ecfi''..d`.ar'ynNa-Jo-hT'.sti'dy.1'Ya, 9q,�7r N6no 'an , x. yy 1•.`r WS �j;t w, /4 4 1` WiY C.Ts, ui� 'R. {'a•��'4'`� '�,5 � `^�nq x>t,�,,*`�`T »-�'u conseiv�.+t�telaaCi�a� Sara". ,�Of ��d�vti. . e�1©,p�neni�eanttst�: •7 t .sem iTx.-.,q 4 �,*"w W. iG ti '� ;i+ :�'C �yb'`moi;�i",... `j•w y +�:" u..'1 ;+}b ,t a y,ropriate�ocattons 3ry limrtu tui 1 area sw a at wfl eco ti tc 3owtt's rural pattern �TO preser�e•an ,� .n+�oS+ f,7'.wy-:^ po-r^TM�t�y4c��au.�. .s.'�.�s�'+.�i'n"�,.�`,�?�e_.it • 'T8,ei.�� tanse tlieas°`es_thea�s� te�tur ,� �e�e�nt�re�ommtuvty;�}�� "ta�''�`its ttatura7,beauty, �o- s�"s.,L'�'sEi`'�wSs � y-;., k k„' k .� '� a y�` •' �� i '*y • '. 4o�Tegrateaiit£f�rentE anandialet cent ,s •�O a Le;to..cc"......Y }' ' is N. 91 .: YT 1""16TY3"^ -+ • To avoid'Su'UM'_ iaw iipe � .....a� M V�r al+ � ���/�+.XY`t,J,}y�!a��.^� '1:.. � 'M.iN•..t Retail Square Footage or Size Caps There is growing concern, both in and outside the retail industry,that too much retail space is being built today. The United States today has the equivalent of almost 4,000 dead malls.28 Since 1972, the amount of retail space per capita in the United States has almost tripled. Between 1980 and 1990, retail space increased by 40 percent while retail spending rose by only seven percent.29 In short,America is "overstored," according to the Urban Land Institute, a national organization that represents developers. The basic issue is that there are only so many dollars to chase so much retail space. Many local economies cannot grow fast enough to absorb huge amounts of new retail space without displacing existing businesses, especially small, locally-owned enterprises BETTER MODELS for SUPERSTORES 37 9-Sa _ Affachment 6 that a community may want to retain. As local governments grapple with the long- term consequences of retail glut—e.g., unused and boarded-up buildings, landscapes made unattractive to future businesses and investors, etc. —public officials are coming to recognize this issue as an important public polity question. In response to local concerns about retail glut, overloaded roads, downtown disin- vestment and other problems associated with superstores, a growing number of com- munities have enacted retail "caps" to limit the overall size— or at least the "foot- print" — of retail stores. Zoning ordinances have long placed restrictions on the height and bulk of buildings. Like height limits, retail caps enacted to protect the public interest are a legitimate plan- ning tool. It is, of course, essential that local governments follow procedural and other legal requirements designed to protect the rights of private property owners. Localities must also make clear whatever valid public purposes are being served by their retail-cap ordinances. As Alan C. Weinstein, a land-use expert and law professor at Cleveland State University, observes: The basic legal issue raised by an attempt to exclude a particular type of retail use would be whether the exclusion advanced a legitimatezoningpurpose. In most jurisdictions,this question would be decided on substantive due process and equal protection grounds,and, since the exclusion does not involve a fundamental right or suspect classification,a court would normally be expected to rule in favor of the city if it offered a reasonable,planning- based rationale for its action. The exception to this general rule is Pennsylvania,which takes the position that the use of zoning to exclude a legitimate use of land is unconstitu- tional...Me smarter strategy for a community,however,is merely to limit retail uses to a maximum square footage,perhaps 50,000 or 60,000 square feet,which places the enact- ment squarely within traditional zoning restrictions on building heights and sizes so that it would most likely not even be seen as an exclusionary device." As the chart below shows,communities from Warrenton, Virginia,to Hailey, Idaho, have placed limits on the size of retail stores. In many cases, the cap applies to the amount of land covered by a building—sometimes called the building "footprint" — allowing larger stores so long as they "build up." Retail Square Footage Community Retail Cap Connecticut,Tolland. 52,000-square-foot limit on the size of individual stores. Note: Most of the retail This limit was challenged in court but upheld." caps apply to individual stores. Mequon,Wisconsin, Connecticut, Wilton 30,000-square-foot limit on size of retail businesses. however, applies not only Retailers over 20,000 square feet must provide sidewalks a cap on individual stores for pedestrian access, devote at least 35 percent of the but also an overall cap on building facade to windows and screen the parking lot the total amount of retail with landscaping or hedges. They must also conduct development allowed traffic and economic analyses to assess impacts on resi- along a major highway." dential streets and the town center. Idaho, Hailey 36,000-square-foot limit on roof area of retail stores. Larger stores are permitted if negotiated as Planned Unit Developments with the city. 38 7-53 Attachment 6 Massachusetts, Greenfield Development projects are defined as "major," and there- fore subject to special review, if they generate more than 500 vehicle trips daily or exceed 20,000 square feet. Major development applicants must submit fiscal, traffic, municipal service, environmental, and community impact analyses. Community impacts include a project's effect on surrounding historic, archeological, and scenic sites. Adverse impacts on historic and scenic sites and on downtown business districts must be mitigated. Massachusetts,Westford 60,000-square-foot limit on gross floor area of retail stores. Buildings between 30,000 and 60,000 square feet require special permits and site plan review. Montana, Bozeman 5,000-square-foot limit on stores in "neighborhood ser- vice districts," which provide "small retail and service activities frequently required by neighborhood residents on a day-to-day basis,while still maintaining a residential character." New York, East Hampton 15,000-square-foot limit on gross floor area of retail stores. Architectural Review Board "shall not be con- strained [in its review of the architectural design of superstores] by the preferences of a particular applicant (such as a large corporation or a chain store) for a dis= tinguishing motif, style, or design which the applicant uses generally for other structures within the town or elsewhere. The Board shall not approve such a stan- dardized project or design unless the Board can and does find that such approval will satisfy the standards and criteria set forth in this section." (Grocery stores may not exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area.) Parking must be located primarily to the side and rear of the building and not in front. East Hampton's ordi- nance has been challenged in court, but as of July 16, 1997, no decision had yet been rendered. New York, Skaneateles 45,000-square-foot limit on stores. Pennsylvania,Mount Joy 100,000-square-foot limit on the size of retail stores locat- ed in "limited commercial districts." Virginia,Fauquier County 75,000-square-foot stores must obtain "special exceptions." Virginia, Warrenton 50,000-square-foot stores must obtain "special use" per- mits that enable the town to evaluate various impacts. Larger stores are permitted if approved as Planned Unit Developments. Wisconsin, Mequon 20,000-square-foot limit on stores located in "community business districts." Mequon also imposes an overall cap of 500,000 square feet on the total amount of retail space allowable in its major commercial corridor. BETTER MODELS for SUPERSTORES 39 7-5_ , Attachment 6 Moratoria on Development -" If a community has not already enacted laws designed to deal with the aesthetic, traffic, economic, and other issues posed by big-box retailers, is it too late? In most states, no. Most states permit local governments to enact interim develop- ment controls, or moratoria, to give local planning departments the time they need to study the complex issues raised by this type of development and to put needed rules and guidelines in place. Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins, Colorado, is an example of a city that used this authority. The city's action came after several large chains announced plans almost simultaneously to build sprawling superstores in an area the city wanted to protect from sprawl. To give local planners time to think through various planning issues presented by the "big boxes," on July 19, 1994, the city council enacted Ordinance 111,a six-month moratorium on the construction of all superstores. In explaining the reasons for the moratorium, the ordinance stated: (a) That the City has recently been presented with development proposals for large,general and special merchandise stores,sometimes known as "superstores." (b) That the bulk,size and scale of such superstores present unusual land use concerns for the City,especially with regard to the aesthetic and transportation impacts of such uses. (c) That considerable study is needed in order to determine the appropriate location for such land uses,the kind of design criteria which should be used to mitigate the visual impacts of the same,and the kind of infrastructure requirements which should be imposed to offset the parking and traffic impacts of such developments. (d) That the development of superstores, in the absence of appropriate regulatory guide- lines,may have an irreversible negative impact upon the City. The moratorium suspended the review and processing of all superstore development applications and permits for projects exceeding 80,000 square feet until January 29, 1995. Projects with preliminary or final approval in hand were exempted from the moratorium. In the meantime, the city created a special task force comprised of developers, local citizens, planners, and others and charged this group with developing design guidelines appropriate for superstores (see below). A developer threatened a lawsuit, but the city went ahead with the moratorium anyway. Skaneateles,New York Skaneateles, New York, enacted a six-month moratorium" in 1994 for reasons similar to those motivating Fort Collins. The moratorium stated: As a beautiful and historic town...Skaneateles faces significant development and growth pressures. It is reasonably anticipated that, with preparation of a compre- hensive plan and a significant zoning law revision underway, a flood of applica- tions for new development could likely be received from applicants hoping to ease in under the wire before revised zoning is enacted. The threat of possible damage to the Town from the conditions listed above is substantial, and it is apparent to the Town Board that the current zoning and sub- division laws are not sufficient to protect the character, health and welfare of the Town, nor the quality and integrity of Skaneateles Lake. To prevent economic hardships for individual property owners as a result of the moratorium, the ordinance allowed for the consideration of zoning variances. 40 r7_Sc Attachment 6 \ Arguing that the moratorium was "arbitrary-and capricious," a local developer sued the town over the moratorium, but the New York Supreme Court upheld the moratori- um in 1995. The court held that "reasonable interim or stop-gap legislation" is valid and recognized by the courts of New York. The court noted that six months was not an unreasonable period of time for a moratorium,especially since it applied to all com- mercial property owners and not just to one developer." The original moratorium was later extended twice. The second extension was challenged in court but upheld. Design Standards During its six-month moratorium on big-box developments, Fort Collins, Colorado (see p. 40), directed its city planning department to work with a citizens task force and the Denver office of Clarion Associates, a Denver- and Chicago-based real estate consulting firm, on the development of new design guidelines for big-box stores. The city adopted these standards in January 1995. The introduction to the standards notes that the stan- dards "are a response to dissatisfaction with corporate chain marketing strategy dictat- ing design that is indifferent to local identity and interests." Fort Collins thus took the position that community identity should not have to yield to corporate identity. The guidelines apply to all retail stores over 25,000 square feet and include the following requirements: • Long blank walls that discourage pedestrian activity are prohibited. Building facades must be broken up with recesses. • Ground-floor facades must have arcades, display windows, awnings, or some other feature to add visual interest to the structure. • Stores must be accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. They must have several entrances to reduce walking distances from cars where stores border two or more public streets. • Stores must provide amenities, such as patio seating areas, kiosks or fountains. • No more than half of the store's parking may be located between the store's front facade and the abutting street. • Sidewalks linking stores to transit stops, street crossings, and building entrances must be provided. Sidewalks must be landscaped. • Stores must have clearly defined entrances, with canopies, porticos, or arches. The city may grant variances from the standards if they are found to cause undue hardship or if the developer or retailer shows that the standard goals can be met in some other way. Other communities with strong design guidelines for retail development include Cambridge,Massachusetts, San Diego, California (for the Rio Vista West project); and Jackson,Wyoming. In February 1997, East Marlborough, Pennsylvania, town supervisors approved a large superstore but stipulated that it be broken up into at least three smaller buildings separated by at least 50 feet's Developments of Regional Impact. Cape Cod Recognizing that large-scale developments, including superstores, often have regional impacts and that small towns usually lack the wherewithal to review these projects, the Massachusetts legislature enacted the Cape Cod Commission Act,which gives the Cape Cod Commission the authority to review and regulate developments of regional impact (DRIB). Projects larger than 10,000 square feet are presumed to be DRIs. DRIB also include projects likely to have significant impacts on more than one municipality on Cape Cod. Impacts on historical, cultural, architectural, archeological, and recreational resources may be considered along with a project's environmental,economic,and fiscal impacts. Such analyses do not prohibit superstore projects from going forward, but they do help to ensure that communities ask pertinent questions, obtain relevant information, and plan adequately for the effects of such developments. BETTER MODELS for SUPERSTORES 41 7-54 / ^S4 Attachment 6 Under the Cape Cod Commission Act, the commission rejected a 120,000-square- foot Costco wholesale club proposed for Sandwich, Massachusetts, in 1994 because the store violated Cape Cod's officially enacted Regional Policy Plan. The commission's ruling stated that the store • was not located within a designated growth center and would thus foster strip development; • could not be integrated into the community without an adverse impact on Cape Cod's resources, including its local community character and local businesses; • would generate more traffic—at least 4,764 vehicle trips daily—than existing roads could handle; • conflicted with the plan's goal of encouraging sustainable development and preserv- ing village centers and downtown areas; • would worsen the Cape's already serious air pollution problems; and • would violate the Cape's planning policy of protecting and preserving the Cape's important historic and cultural features." Although Costco challenged the commission's decision in court,the retailer eventually dropped its lawsuit and both the law and the commission remain intact. More recently, the standards for DRIB were applied to a large project proposed by Home Depot. The project met strong opposition from the Yarmouth Citizens for Responsible Development and the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. Home Depot backed away from its proposal to build a sprawl-type development in March 1997. Withdrawal of Subsidies for Sprawl Many states, unfortunately, actually subsidize sprawl by providing tax breaks, financial assistance, road improvements and the like to inappropriately located developments that speed the death of older downtowns. Maryland enacted legislation in early 1997 that essentially withdraws state subsidies for sprawl. The law prohibits the state from funding growth-related projects not located in "Priority Funding Areas." Such areas include well-established cities, towns, and suburbs while generally excluding the coun- tryside. Examples of "growth-related" projects are land acquisition, roads, water and sewer projects, and economic development assistance. Maryland State Planning Director Ronald Kreitner has pointed out that Maryland's new "Smart Growth" law repealed "an insidious form of entitlement—the idea that state government has an open-ended obligation,regardless of where you choose to build a house or open a business,to be there to build roads,schools,sewers."" The overall goal of the new law is to reduce sprawl,revitalize older urban and suburban communi- ties, preserve forests and farmland,and preserve the state's quality of life. Local Business Retention Zones Greenwich, Connecticut preserves locally-owned small businesses through "local busi- ness retention zones" intended to "protea and encourage neighborhood-oriented retail development." The zones are defined in part as areas that • "provide central but limited concentration of complementary retail goods and per- sonal services in convenient locations to meet the frequent recurring needs of near- by residents;" • "do not depend on areas substantially larger than the neighborhood districts they are designed to serve and...do not attract a significant pan of their clientele from beyond the surrounding neighborhood." i' 'I h n i i' 42 �'�� Aftachmenf 6 I -. The scale, des_,,..,character, and uses of commercial buildings in the local business retention zone are sup- posed to be compatible with surrounding residential areas and to supply desired goods and services. The ordinance emphasizes an adequate amount of ground- floor storefront space for retail businesses which display and stock goods for sale to consumers. The North Beach neighborhood in San Francisco also aims to protect locally owned businesses that contribute to the neighborhood's unique identity. The local zoning 1 ordinance bans all but "neighborhood-serving" businesses. I These are defined as follows: 44 Sec. 790.68. Neighborhood-Serving Businesses. E A neighborhood-serving business cannot be defined by the type of use,but rather by the characteristics of its customers, t " A types of merchandise or service,its size,trade area,and the number of similar establishments in other neighborhoods. Small businesses such as The primary clientele of a "neighborhood-serving business," by definition,is comprised of this family-owned hard- customers who live and/or work nearby. ware store in downtown I.phrata, Pennsylvania, are While a neighborhood-serving business may derive revenue from customers outside the immediately surrounding neighborhood,it is not dependent on an out-of-neighborhood thrcatened by superstore clientele. Sprawl. A neighborhood-serving use provides goods and/or services which are needed by residents and workers in the immediate neighborhood to satisfy basic personal and household needs on a frequent and recurring basis,and which if not available require trips outside of the neighborhood. A use may be more or less neighborhood-serving depending upon its trade area. Uses which due to the nature of their products and services tend to be more neighborhood-serv- ing are those which sell convenience items such as groceries,personal toiletries,magazines ' and personal services such as cleaners, laundromats,film processing. Uses which tend to be less neighborhood-oriented are those which see more specialized,more expensive,less y frequently purchased comparison goods such as automobiles and furniture. S For many uses (such as stores selling apparel),household goods and variety merchandise, r whether a business is neighborhood-serving depends on the size of the establishment:the 'f• larger the use,the larger the trade area,hence the less neighborhood-oriented. Impact Fees Impact fees have been widely used to finance road and other improvements required by ^' new development. In Collierville,Tennessee, a small town near Memphis, the city uses ..;, such fees to help pay for downtown historic preservation activities. In 1992, the town fathers declared that commercial development on the outskirts of town harmed the historic downtown. So they asked the state legislature for permission to levy impact fees to finance public improvements in the downtown. The state responded by enacting a law permitting the town to levy a tax of 25 cents for every square foot of new commercial development built outside Collierville's historic town square area. Since 1992, Collierville has raised about $263,986 from the impact fee.Though not a large sum, this revenue has helped the town to pay the debt service on a bond raised to r` finance public improvements in the historic area. These included new brick sidewalks, a new bandstand, and a plaza. Big-box as well as other retailers pay this impact fee. A. r, ,4a BETTER MODELS/or SUPERSTORES 43 Mitigatto,' of Adverse Impacts Attachment 8 ' Sometimes communities can work out agreements with big-box stores to mitigate a project's adverse impacts on a downtown. In Auburn,Washington, where a million-square-foot mall opened in 1995, local plan- ners and merchants negotiated an agreement whereby the mall ownership committed to • pay for a staff person, marketing brochures, a business survey, a newsletter, and other activities aimed at promoting the old downtown; • operate a free downtown shuttle bus between the mall and the downtown; and • provide space at the mall to advertise downtown events. It is important to recognize that both impact fees and mitigation of adverse impacts are merely palliatives and do not directly confront the problem of sprawl. Such tools should be considered last-resort measures after the battle to save a downtown or Main Street has already been lost. It is better for communities to deal more comprehensively with sprawl by avoiding such development in the first place. Zoning bans against "sprawl locations," retail caps, moratoria, design standards, reviews of developments with regional impacts, the withdrawal of subsidies for sprawl, local business retention zones, impact fees, mitigation of adverse impacts—these are just a few of the planning,zoning, and negotiating tools that local governments can use to prevent their communities from being degraded by unattractive and wasteful sprawl. The important point to keep in mind is that local public officials are responsible for looking after the long-term as well as the immediate interests of the community, and these officials are in a much stronger position to negotiate in behalf of the community if appropriate planning and zoning laws are already in place. 44 n c / J �i Attachment 7 TA 29-01-RETAIL SIZE CAP ORDINANCE APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES The General Plan Land Use Element lists several goals and policies that are relevant to the proposed retail size cap ordinance. The Land Use Element states: "San Luis Obispo should be a well-balanced community. Environmental, social, and economic factors must be taken into account in important decisions about San Luis Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. The social fabric of the communityfor both residents and visitors must also be a part of that balance. Therefore, complementary to the goals and objectives of this element, the City shall maintain and bi-annually review goals and objectives that promote the economic well being of the community. The stated economic goals of the City are: Goal 10:Provide goods and services which substantial numbers of area residents leave the area regularly to obtain,provided doing so is consistent with other goals. Goal 11: Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals. Goal 13: Provide an adequate revenue base for local governmental and public schools. Goal 21: Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community. Goal 24:Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment; cultural, professional,. medical, and social services; community organizations; retail trade. The Land Use Element sets forth several goals to guide City form. Those goals are as follows: Goal 28:Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating it from other urban development. Goal 29: Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. Goal 30.Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open land. Goal 31: Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. 7-41 Attachment 7 Goal33:Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense ofplace and architectural heritage. Goal 34:Develop buildings and places, which complement the natural landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods. The General Plan contains several policies on commercial and industrial development. The stated policies are as follows: Policy LU3.1: General Retail Policy LU 3.1.1:Purpose and Included Uses The City should have areas for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and nearby County residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses (see LU Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5). Policy L U 3.1.2:Locations for Regional Attractions The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. Policy L U 3.1.3:Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion No substantial additional land area should be added to the commercial centers at Madonna Road and Highway 101 until a detailed plan for the retail expansion has been approved by the City. The plan should describe the limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses, phasing, and circulation improvements. Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing development in the area. Before approving an expansion plan, the City should consider an evaluation of how much it would transfer sales from existing retail areas in the City and whether the proposed uses could be developed in existing retail areas. Policy L U 3.1.5.-Specialty Store.Locations Most specialty retail stores should be downtown, in the Madonna Road area, or the Los Osos Valley Road area; some may be in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor part of the centers and they primarily serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional markets. Policy L U 3.1.6:Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 3.0, except that downtown sites. which receive transfers of development credits for open space protection shall not exceed 4.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural �-d I r � Attachment 7 review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in General Retail districts, they shall not exceed 36 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. Policy L U 3.2:Neighborhood Commercial Policy LU 3.2.1: Purpose and Included Uses. The City should have areas for Neigborhood Commercial uses to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood Commercial uses include grocery stores, Laundromats, and drug and hardware stores. Neighborhood Commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residences............ Policy 3.2.2: New or Expanded Centers. New or expanded Neighborhood Commercial centers should.- A. hould.A. Be created within, ore extended into, adjacent nonresidential areas; B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole City;..... C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good internal circulation; E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating; F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neighborhood activities. The following growth management policy is relevant to the retail size ordinance. Policy LU 1.11.4 Nonresidential Growth Rate. Each year, the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in nonresidential floor area over the preceding five years. The Council shall consider establishing limits for the rate of nonresidential development if the increase in nonresidential floor area for any five-year period exceeds five percent, except that the first 300,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area constructed after 1994 shall be excluded from calculating the increase. Any limits so established shall not apply to: (a) changed operations or employment levels, or relocation or ownership change, of any business existing within the City at the time the limit is set; (b) additional nonresidential floor area within the downtown core; (c)public agencies; and (d) manufacturing, light industrial, or research businesses. �-�a 9 r toe E8� v. S E'�•'J � a? E€3 �F, u���4 &3 � - Ys iw� �eE �= 7t• sE 'S� C�' E3_ { _?; 'Y g. 3 "• �g.�i: P �a ' g 9 �a P, 5 e.'� ��� '_ we5= 3�` - = e�i_ ��_ -�e�• �4 --.� fir' _ ol�� =.��,- ',e� '' y :� 7' _ si Sig ru 3 =3•> 3 1 aux; o ��G� �M� ol�gn �_..�;�5 �'.T �i��b Y2S �L- 3 _ ��`a �!F �x_ � � `--•g MR- IT r us _ 7.1 fi9 3�vv-q� .�_ '=' n ,' 3�`< - _ ' 9Ec7, E • b•c ?� 'i� ��" S F Q cl o � 0 �3r is 43 F � V 42 �YCd �Y na � �'a - i' ��. �'5 •� 0$ ��'' ��4 9s y, � -- � , $ � tl�s S �°• A� s Ea f S�Z �v, nP �� :: _ �i� •'f A '�o� �_ age �5� �s� �= �5s �_� ��� �=`_. �S�g �'�s �$� �s"s �a� @'� �=P �=y.s ggC 5 to Q f o.I �i g' px0�$ bu: � ' a sa£ Z6? i&_• M S _= -S 44 :d'EH $' slE- 8 luawyoggy - 7—/43 Draft Ordinance "A" Attachment 9 ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS)TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES,TA 29-01 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25,2001, May 23,2001,July 11,2001 and October 10,2001,to consider amendments and recommended approval of amendments to Title 17 of the City Municipal Code(Zoning Regulations)to establish a maximum building size for large-scale commercial buildings;and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 2001 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and WHEREAS,the City Council has determinedthat it is necessary to amend relevant sections of the Central-Commercial(C-C),Retail-Commercial(C-R),Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N),Tourist-Commercial(C-T)and the Commercial-Service(C-S)zoning designations to limit the size of large retail stores(buildings)and to add performance standards;and WHEREAS,the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo is to establish a precise and detailed plan for the use of land in the City,based on the General Plan;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts;and WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code Section 21000,et seq.;and WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994,sets forth goals,policies and programs to:'develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment;promote and enhance real property values;conserve the city's natural beauty;preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character;and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures;and City Council Ordinance Nu. - (2001 series) Page 2 Attachment 9 WHEREAS,the size of large-scale retail buildings present unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police,fire and public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores;and WHEREAS,it is the City's goal to reduce the physical impacts of large-scale retail structures on the community. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council,after consideration of all the evidence makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics,ideal climate conditions,spectacular natural vistas,and dynamic natural features.The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community,it is the policy of the Council to protect,maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms,and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives,policies,and programs of the General Plan,and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health,safety,and welfare. 5. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed limits on commercial building size are insignificant. 9-105 City Council Ordinance N,.. (2001 series) Page 3 Attachment 9 SECTION 3. Sections Amended: The following sections of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows: 17.16.060 Parking Space Requirements is hereby amending to read as follows: Retail sales-general merchandise(drug, One space per 300 square feet gross floor area. discount,department and variety stores) For retail stores over 45,000 square feet,a �aximum of one s ace per 300 s uarq a feet gross oor area�— et�sale 'Warehouse stores One space per 200 square feet gross floor area For retail sales-warehouse stores over 45,000 squar eet,a maximum of one spaceear 300 square feet gross floor area.F 1738.020(Neighborhood-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G.Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.40.020(Retail-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and"H" to read as follows: G.Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection"H"and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishmentmay be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area,if the Planning Commission determines that it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or in significant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. I. A retail establishment may exceed the 110,000 square foot limitation by up to 25%with a ground floor maximum of 80,000 square feet, if the building includes multiple floors and it meets performance standards specified in Section H (above). Ci Council Ordinance N�,. 2001 series � ( ) ' Attachment 9 Page 4 17.42.020(Central-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and"H"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area,if the Planning Commission determines that it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or insignificant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. I. A retail establishment may exceed the 110,000 square foot limitation by up to 25%with a ground floor maximum of 80,000 square feet, if the building includes multiple floors and it meets performance standards specified in Section H(above). 17.44.020(Tourist-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.46.020(Service-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by Section 17.16.035. 42, City Council Ordinance Nom (2001 series) Page 5 Attachment 9 17.22.010,Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended to read as follows: Table 9:Uses Allowed by R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T Zone Retail Sales-convenience stores A A A A D D Retail sales-indoor sales of A8 A A A A building materials and gardening supplies(hardware,floor and wall coverings,paint,glass stores), Retail sales-appliances,furniture, As A A A A musical instruments;data processing equipment,business, office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting goods,outdoor supply L1 Retail sales-groceries,liquor and A A A PC specialized foods(bakery,meats, dairy items,etc.P, Retail sales-neighborhood grocery A A D (See also Sec. 17.08.095) Retail sales-gen'I merchandise 2 (drug,discount,department,and variety stores)(See also"Retail sales-warehouse stores) -15,000 square feet or less gross floor area per establishment A A A -15,001 to 60,000 square feet gross PC APC A ISI floor area per establishment -more than 60,000 square feet PC DN gross floor area per establishment Retail sales and rental—specialties A8 A A (shoe stores,clothing stores, book/record/videotape stores,toy stores,gift shops) ,11 Retail Sales-Warehouse stores 45,000 square feet or less gross PC DPG BP floor area per establishment -more than 45,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC PC PC City Council Ordinance N. . (2001 series) Page 6 Attachment 9 Notes: 23. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not exceed the retail size limits established for each commercial zone district, see Sections 17.16.035, 17.38.020, 17.40.020,17.42.020, 17.44.020 and 17.46.020. A large-scale retail commercial building is defined as the construction of a single structure for the express purpose of accommodating one retail tenant on one parcel. Commercial uses in different structures separated by a public right-of-way shall not be considered the same building. When a large-scale commercial use is located within a multi-tenant building, the retail tenant's space shall define the "building." SECTION 4. The following section of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows: 17.16.035 Size limits on Large-Scale Retail Establishments A. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not exceed the retail size limits established for each commercial zone, see Sections 17.16.035, 17.38.020, 17.40.020,17.42.020, 17.44.020 and 17.46.020. SECTION 5. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in the Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. 7� 9 Y� City Council Ordinance Ne. (2001 series) Page 7 Attachment 9 INTRODUCED on the_day of ,2001,AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 200 1,on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS T4CAttorney M: J Jo a TA29-01(0rdinanceF) Draft Ordinance"B" Attachment 10 ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS)TO EXCEPT EXISTING LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS AND LARGE-SCALE RETAIL PROJECTS WITH AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION DEEMED"PIPELINE PROJECT"FROM THE ADOPTED SIZE LIMITATIONS,WITH THE PROVISION THAT THESE PROJECTS BE SUBJECT TO THE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL PROJECTS,TA 29-01 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25,.200 1, May 23, 2001,July 11,2001 and October 10,2001,to consider amendments and recommended approval of amendments to Title 17 of the City Municipal Code(Zoning Regulations)to establish a maximum building size for large-scale commercial buildings;and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on 2001 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo is to establish a precise and detailed plan for the use of land in the City,based on the General Plan;and WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts;and WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code Section 21000,et seq.;and 7-7/ City Council Ordinance Nc,. (2001 series) Page 2 Attachment 10 NOW THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council,after consideration of all the evidence makes the following findings: 1. Granting an exception to existing retail stores and "pipeline" projects will not conflict with the General Plan and supports the social and economic goals of the General Plan. Those goals are to: provide a resilient economic base that can tolerate changes without harm to the community; to retain existing businesses and agencies; to accommodate the expansion of existing businesses; and to serve as the retail hub of San Luis Obispo County. 2. Granting an exception to existing retail stores and "pipeline" projects will not harm the health, safety and welfare of the community because there are a limited number of developments that would qualify as"pipeline"projects. SECTION 3. Sections Amended: Section 17.16.035 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. The following section of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows: 17.16.035 Size limits on Large-Scale Retail Establishments B. Exceptions to Retail Building Size Limits 1. When an otherwise lawful retail establishment existed on the effective date of the size limits, such structure shall be considered a development non-conformity but may be continued, structurally altered,repaired or reconstructed so long as it is not increased,extended or enlarged beyond the gross floor area of the building that existed on that date. To the extent practicable, the design guidelines for large-scale retail projects shall be applied to any alteration, reconstruction or repair that takes place after the effective date of the size limits. 2. Any development or portion of a development that is covered by an approved development permit or a development permit application deemed complete by the Community Development Director prior to the effective date of the size limitations shall be exempted from the size limitations,but subject to the design and performance standards. City Council Ordinance Ivo: (2001 series) Page 3 Attachment 10 SECTION 5. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in the Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the_day of ,2001,AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of '200 1,on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: // 14e4� - e y G or,, en ity Attorney TA29-01(OrdinanceG) 7- 73 ►'"STING AGENDA LnfE l I"6 -01 ITEM #_ San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO November 2, 2001 Sze, r,,,rcQ�;vtac�cy�.GeGea.+,s Allen Settle, Mayor NCIL DD DIR City of San Luis Obispo E C� ❑ FIN DIR 990 Palm Street Er6CAO Cl FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo, CA 12-ATFC RNEv ❑ PW DIR LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ D PT EADS ❑ REC DIR Re: Retail Size Ordinance ❑ UTIL DIR Or.- ❑ HR DIR Dear Allen, ✓o`?� We want to thank you for your previous vote against the proposed amendment to the City's zoning regulations which would regulate the size of retail establishments. We have reviewed the ordinance in its revised form and continue to oppose it. Your statements at the Council meeting of Sept. 4 were very apropos to the undesirability of adding rules for their own sake. As you said at that time, this ordinance seems to be over reaction to a perceived threat. We agree with your point of view that we should not destroy our options prematurely. To us, the fundamental question remains-what problem is this proposed ordinance supposed to solve?Adding regulations to business should not be done capriciously. A compelling need for this regulation has not been demonstrated. "One size" does not fit all when it comes to the retail industry and we appreciate your expression of this fact. Our Chamber continues to support the economic and community well-being of our City. To this end, we need both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. We hope that you will once again veto an ordinance that unnecessarily restricts business opportunities in San Luis Obispo. Thank you for considering our thoughts in this matter. S' \ly, RECEIVED DaveJuhnke NOV 0 5 2001 Chairman of the Board Fe,LO CITY COUNCIL e-mail: slochamberpslochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com G Mr�ING AGENDA DAit" 11 b of ITEM #_�_ San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce November 2, 20011039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO Jan Howell Marx, Council Member Cityof San Luis Obispo CfJONCIL D DIR 990 Palm Street 0?LLERK4RIG o EDFIN DIR O FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ORNEY 13 PW DIR 0 POLICE CHF 13 Re: Retail Size Ordinance jj� T H Ds ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR HR DIR Dear Jan, &tz_�6 As you know, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed the proposed amendment to the City's zoning regulations which would regulate the size of retail establishments. Our position on this matter is the result of intense and thorough discussion in committee and at the Board of Directors. The diverse group of volunteer leaders in our organization continue to believe that such an ordinance is not in the best interests of our membership nor our community. To us, one fundamental question remains-what problem is this proposed ordinance supposed to solve? We hope, as a business person, you would agree that adding regulations to business should not be done capriciously. The compelling need for this regulation is still not obvious to us. While some would claim that it would protect small business, there is really no empirical evidence to support this. In fact, many business people welcome the opportunity to benefit from a more vital and diverse retail environment. Our Chamber does not support a "build whatever you want in San Luis Obispo" attitude and has,.in fact, endorsed the design guidelines for large buildings put forward by the ARC. We will continue to stand by our mission which is to support the economic and community well-being of our City. To this end, we need both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Let's not unnecessarily limit the options for our retail future. Thank-you for considering our thoughts in this matter. We appreciate your service to the community and willingness to engage in dialogue on the issues. Please consider voting against the revised retail size ordinance when it comes before you on November 6. Sin ely, :ECEIVED 5 2001 Dave Juhnke SL Chairman of the Board CO_UNCIL e-mail: slochamberpslochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com Nr'TING AGENDA l ITEM#.. San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 November 2, 2081 David E. Garth, President/CEO Christine Mulholland, Council Member City of San Luis Obispo UNCIL D DIR 990 Palm Street _ 9A0 ❑ FIN DIR San Luis Obispo, Co, CA 93401 MiSC [I FIRE CHIEF TORNEY ❑ PW DIR 19CLERK/ORIO ❑ POLICE CHF Re: Retail Size Ordinance ❑ D PTH DS 0 AEC DIR 0 UTIL DIR Dear Christine, 12 HR DA WJE:: As you know, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed the proposed amendment to the City's zoning regulations which would regulate the size of retail establishments. Our position on this matter is the result of intense and thorough discussion in committee and at the Board of Directors. The leaders of our organization continue to believe that such an ordinance is not in the best interests of our membership nor our community. To us, one fundamental question remains-what problem is this proposed ordinance supposed to solve?We hope you would agree that adding regulations to business should not be done capriciously. The compelling need for this regulation is still not obvious to us. Our Chamber does not support a "build whatever you want in San Luis Obispo" attitude and has, in fact, endorsed the design guidelines for large buildings put forward by the ARC. We will continue-to stand by our mission which is to support the economic and community well-being of our City. To this end, we need both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Let's not unnecessarily limit the options for our retail future. Thank-you for considering our thoughts in this matter. We appreciate your service to the community and willingness to engage in dialogue on the issues. Please consider voting against the revised retail size ordinance when it comes before you on November 6. ely, FRE NO 0 Dave luhnke SLO C�"�Y COUh Cha'rrWa9f!M�MP@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com ;�'EETING AGENDA DATE lI-5 D) ITEM #_2 San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 November 2, 2001 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO Ken Schwartz, Council Member City of San Luis Obispo grc0 N C I L D DIR Mk ❑ FIN DIR 990 Palm Street C O C1FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo, CAEY 13 PW DIR ERwo G ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ DT W ❑ EC DIR Re: Retail Size Ordinance g REC ❑ DIA ❑ HR DIR Dear Ken, We want to thank you for your previous vote against the proposed amendment to the City's zoning regulations which would regulate the size of retail establishments. We have reviewed the ordinance in its revised form and continue to oppose it. Your statements at the Council meeting of Sept. 4 were very apropos to the undesirability of adding rules for their own sake. As you said on that occasion, business follows trends in society and we should not close the door on our retail future. To us, the fundamental question remains-what problem is this proposed ordinance supposed to solve? Adding regulations to business should not be done capriciously. A compelling need for this regulation has not been demonstrated. "One size" does not fit all when it comes to the retail industry and we appreciate your sensitivity to this and to the need for adequate design guidelines. You have posed thoughtful questions about what does make a building acceptable in a community and have helped identify some of the essential visual and ambient elements. Our Chamber continues to support the economic and community well-being of our City. To this end, we need both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. We hope that you will once again veto an ordinance that unnecessarily restricts business opportunities in San Luis Obispo. Thank you for considering our thoughts in this matter. Sincerely, RECEI:EE-DaveJuhnkeNO0 5Chairman of the Board SLO CITY CIL e-mail: slochamber®slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com Mr- TING AGENDA G,..c //-�D/ ITEM #® San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 November 2, 2001 David E. Garth, President/CEO John Ewan, Council Member City of San Luis Obispo � cguNciL D DIA 990 Palm Street I<CA ❑ FIN C EY FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RIG 0 PW DIR S 0HECIDRCHF Re: Retail Size Ordinance f� ❑ RECUTIL DIR HR DIR Dear John, As you know, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed the proposed amendment to the City's zoning regulations which would regulate the size of retail establishments. Our position on this matter is the result of intense and thorough discussion in committee and at the Board of Directors. The leaders of our organization continue to believe that such an ordinance is not in the best interests of our membership nor our community. To us, one fundamental question remains-what problem is this proposed ordinance supposed to solve?We hope, as a business person, you would agree that adding regulations to business should not be done capriciously. The compelling need for this regulation is still not obvious to us. Our Chamber does not support a "build whatever you want in San Luis Obispo" attitude and has, in fact, endorsed the design guidelines for large buildings put forward by the ARC. We will continue to stand by our mission which is to support the econorruc and community well-being of our City. To this end, we need both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Let's not unnecessarily limit the options for our retail future. Thank-you for considering our thoughts in this matter. We appreciate your service to the community and willingness to engage in dialogue on the issues. Sincerely, ':.5,72ECcIVED V 0 5 200? Dave Juhnke 17Y Chairman of the Board COUNCIL e-mail: slochamber®slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com ME,®NG AGENDA 1-7 DAVITEM#.� Draft SAN LUIS OBISPO ciL CDD DIR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ❑ FIN DIR OCTOBER 10, 2001 CAC ❑ FIRE CHIEF RNEY ❑ Pw DIR LECKJORIQ ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ D PTH D8 ❑ Aso DIR CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: t� ❑ UTiL DIR p' JDAZ3; ❑ HR DIR The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at p.m. on ✓7K)mx, Wednesday, October 10, 2001, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, ✓&OX- MA San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell, and Chairman Stephen Peterson Absent: Vice-Chairwoman Loh Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Deputy Directors Ron Whisenand and Mike Draze, Associate Planner John Shoals and Jeff Hook, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA RECEIVED N0"1 01 2001 The agenda was accepted as presented. SLO CIN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of May 23, 2001, were accepted as corrected on page 6 and page 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, San Luis Obispo, stated she detests big box stores and the City needs surveillance on this item. There were no other public comments made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Citywide. TA 29-01; Text amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to regulate the size of retail establishments; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report, explaining that the Council referred the matter back to the Commission for a recommendation on what the retail size limit should be in the C-N zoning district, whether a maximum parking requirement should be established for large-scale retail projects, and an evaluation of the effects of multi-level buildings on the proposed ordinance. Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 2 Development Review Manager Whisenand noted that Council has not taken an action on the ordinance itself. He stated they have not decided whether the ordinance is appropriate and would like to get some clarification from the Commission as well as the ARC. Commr. Cooper noted there was a reference to the Airport Area Specific Plan, and asked if the maximum parking rate of 250 square feet per space applies to this project. Community Development Director Mandeville stated the Airport Area's Specific Plan business park designation is the one that had the maximum parking ratio and the normal zoning standard for this kind of commercial use is 300 square feet minimum. He noted that with Airport Area Specific Plan Business Park zoning, there was a need to set a maximum that was higher than the minimum, and that it was .set by how many parking spaces would be provided on-site. Commr. Cooper noted the Commission looks at design guidelines and how they work in concert with the zoning. Deputy Director Whisenand stated the Council specifically asked the Commission to look at the parking issue and at retail size limits. He noted these issues would also have input by the ARC. Deputy Director Whisenand noted the design guidelines are one of the items addressed in the findings granting the exception for going beyond 60,000 square feet. Director Mandeville stated the relationship of the design guidelines to the standards came from feelings by the Commission and Council that it was really design guidelines that would serve as a control mechanism on the effects of large retail stores. Commr. Cooper felt if the Commission is to make a discretionary decision on square footage, they need more direction. Chairman Peterson stated he attended the City Council meeting was asked to take a look at the parking number and consider whether maximum vs. minimum parking numbers would be appropriate. The Council felt the ARC would address the configuration of the parking and its location in relationship to the building, but the Commission would review the numbers. Commr. Cooper stated if this item does not come back to the Commission, he would like their concerns identified, and would like to clarify the mandatory parking reduction, based on the fact that they can reduce voluntary parking requirements for shared uses. Deputy Director Whisenand explained the difference between a shared use parking reduction and a mixed use parking reduction. He explained that shared parking deals with multiple tenants, and mixed use is when you have retail use and a residential use or nighttime theater use and a daytime office use. Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 3 Planner Shoals stated there was a discussion about the retailers and what their proposed parking requirements were compared to the City standards, noting the City standard is a minimum of 1 per 300 square feet. Commr. Boswell stated a recommendation was sent to exempt existing large-scale commercial buildings that existed prior to the effective date of the ordinance, and he questioned if one of the justifications for going from 45,000 to 55,000 is not really an issue because of the exemption. Planner Shoals stated if the exemption existed prior to this ordinance going into effect and if it exceeds that standard, then it becomes legal non-conforming and they can rebuild back to the size that predated the ordinance. Deputy Director Whisenand noted there is an exemption provision written into the ordinance. Commr. Boswell stated the Council would like the Commission to look at the relationship between the design issues the ARC was considering. He asked if the Council considered the demolition bond issue. Planner Shoals noted that a Council member had mentioned the issue, but there was no detailed discussion. There were no further comments or questions and the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, supported the 45,000 square foot size cap. He believed the rational for 55,000 square feet that is proposed has a number of flaws and felt the public's interest should be served rather than the private interest. Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, stated that no more of these big box stores should be built until all issues are resolved. Patricia Wilmore, Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber is against a size ordinance because it appears to be anti-business, anti-free market, anti-economic vitality, and against knowing what the residents might want in the future. She stated that the design guidelines from the ARC, will give them the goals they are looking for. Andrew Merriam, 4334 Wavertree, Chairman of Economic Development Committee, felt that the design guidelines outlined by the ARC provides the option to go with a larger number because they include the primary aesthetic and design issue in the uniqueness of the community. He supported the design as the overriding option as opposed to arbitrative imitations. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 4 Chairperson Peterson stated he supports maintaining the 45,000 square foot limit. Commr. Osborne suggested rezoning everything to C-R or allowing the larger stores at 55,000 square feet in the C-N zoning districts. Commr. Cooper felt that, given the fact they are exempting existing stores, there is no reason to go up to 55,000 square feet. Chairperson Peterson made a motion to recommend to the City Council a 45.000 square foot limit for the C-N zone. Seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Commr. Boswell stated he would support staying with their original 45,000 square foot recommendation. He felt their exemption covers the primary concern and felt it is important to re-enforce the notion that these are intended to be neighborhood commercial centers. Deputy Director Whisenand stated they are in the process of looking at the commercial zoning districts and one of the items that the Commission has asked staff to look at is the various C-N districts and how are they functioning. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Aiken, and Boswell NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Loh The motion carried 6-0. Commr. Boswell noted some City Council members were supportive of changing the minimum of 1 per 300 to a maximum, and that they could get more than the maximum if they went to structured parking, creating some flexibility. Commr. Cooper stated they need to start encouraging carpooling and shuttles at peak times, and noted he supports the 300 square foot size. Commr. Caruso stated parking reductions and shared parking works with and supports the 300 square foot size. Commr. Aiken stated he finds it difficult to support having an absolute limit without having some reasonable alternative for providing additional parking spaces. Commr. Boswell made a motion that a parking restriction of 1 space per 300 gross square feet with the possibility of exceeding the 1 per 300 square foot getting more spaces if they go to a structured multi-story parking. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Aiken requested that the motion be amended slightly to allow for alternative parking as well, and if there is land available nearby that meet the criteria for off-site parking be expanded to include this. Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 5 Commr. Boswell asked if a parking lot were constructed off-site, would it be considered a separate project. Deputy Director Whisenand replied there are use restrictions for parking as a principle use in the various zoning districts, and there are permit requirements whereby you could create parking for parking purposes only. Commr. Boswell asked if it would be considered two different projects in such an instance. Deputy Director Whisenand stated it would be a separate project. Planner Shoals suggested a possible parking alternative. If a retail establishment wanted to exceed the maximum standard, they could set aside some land with landscaping. If they can demonstrate that they need more spaces than the maximum, they come back later and apply for additional parking. Commr. Boswell stated the amendment to the motion was not clear enough to accept it. He asked Assistant City Attorney Trujillo if Mr. Shoals' idea is something that is possible. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo stated it would be very difficult and almost unworkable to try to craft this unique language. Commr. Cooper stated he is happy with the existing motion. Commr. Osborne stated he would like to mitigate the negative impacts of big box stores and felt they are very inefficient in the land use, noting the motion addresses this. Commr. Aiken asked if this motion includes the portion that deals with mandatory reduction and a clarification on the mandatory parking reduction. Deputy Director Whisenand stated his understanding is the motion does not include this, and he is not sure if they would need the mandatory parking reduction if they were going with a maximum of 1 per 300 square feet. Commr. Aiken asked if it would reduce the number of parking spaces that are required on a project. Deputy Director Whisenand stated if there are two large retail establishments side-by- side, they would be looking at the parking at 1 space per 300 square feet, plus 1 space per 300 square feet minus the 10 percent, and they would have 10 percent less than they normally would have on site. Commr. Aiken asked if the retailers felt they could afford to give up certain parking spaces and if they could get a larger retail store participating in shared parking arrangement. Draft Planning Commission Minutes ` October 10, 2001 Page 6 Deputy Director Whisenand stated they could apply for reduced parking based on shared use under the current code. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, and Peterson NOES: Commr. Aiken ABSENT: Commr. Loh The motion carried 5-1. Commr. Cooper made a motion that the design guidelines work in concert with zoning and development standards. Seconded by Chairperson Peterson.. There was much discussion on design guidelines and the consensus was that they were in conformance. AYES: Commr. Cooper, Peterson, Osborne, Boswell NOES: Commr. Caruso and Aiken ABSENT: Commr. Loh The motion carried 4-2. The Commission went on to discuss gross floor area vs. footprint. Chairperson Peterson stated he was reprimanded by the Council for not being more clear in their ordinance on whether they were talking about building footprint or gross floor area, so he wanted to offer some clarification. Commr. Caruso stated he assumed they were talking about gross floor area and he felt they should start thinking about it in a gross floor area instead of just footprint. Commr. Osborne stated they should make the maximum 110,000 square feet be the gross floor area and if someone wants to talk about mixed used, they can talk about multi-story and doing other things on the other floors. Chairperson Peterson suggested the idea that a retail establishment may be allowed up to 138,000 square feet if it meets the standard that the building is multi-storied and the ground floor is no larger than 65,000 square feet. This could apply to the C-R and C-C zones so there could be a mechanism to encourage multi-story uses and a better design product. Commr. Osborne felt it should be 69,000 square feet if 138,000 is intended and divide it by two. Commr. Aiken stated he has no objection to the 110,000 square foot maximum if this applies to the footprint of the building and an allowable 50% increase for each second and third level. Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 10,2001 Page 7 Chairperson Peterson noted a multi-story building with a 110,000 square foot first floor is going to be a massively bulky building. The intended use of 65,000 square feet would cut down on the bulk of the building by having a smaller footprint. Commr. Osborne stated one of the negative impacts of these stores is the inefficient land use and he felt this can be addressed by going to multi-story. Commr. Boswell stated the Council suggested the Commission wrestle with the issue of considering the height or the stories of the building in its relationship to this square footage. Chairperson Peterson made a motion to amend this draft ordinance in the C-C and C-R zones to read °a retail establishment may be allowed to exceed the 110,000 square foot limit by up to 25% if it meets the standard that the building is multi-storied with the ground floor being no larger than 65,000 square feet." Seconded by Commr. Boswell. Chairperson Peterson stated the 110,000 square foot limit could be exceeded by 25%, if the building is multi-storied and the ground floor is no larger than 65,000 square feet. Commr. Osborne made an amendment to make the ground floor 80,000 square feet. Chairperson Peterson agreed to the amendment to the motion, and Commr. Boswell agreed as the seconder. Commr. Aiken stated he does not support the 110,000 square foot size limit. Commr. Cooper felt that staff did a good job in surveying across the nation all of the ordinances and found none exceeding 102,000 square feet. He noted he is not supportive of the 110,000 square feet. Commr. Boswell felt they are going to have a fairly restrictive ordinance. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Boswell, Caruso, Osborne NOES: Commrs. Cooper and Aiken ABSENT: Commr. Loh The motion carried 4-2. 2. 1264 Foothill Boulevard. U 86-01; Request to allow a fraternity house; R-4 zone; Phi Theta, applicant. Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report and recommended approval based on findings and subject to conditions. Commr. Boswell asked what this use permit would allow in terms of additional privileges or changes that could not be done now. Planner Shoals replied they would be able to put their letters on the premises. M NO _� AGENDA RM PN # PH communication October 31, 2001 C CIS CDO DIR C) FIN DIR 0 0 FIRE CHIEF TO: Mayor and Council MembersRNEY" 0 P,W DIR. LERWORIQ ❑ POLIOE'CHF FROM: Sherry Stendahl ❑ 4 e-V HEAD d REC DIR UTIL DIR ® HR DIR SUBJECT: SIZE OF COSTCO STORES ,/ v G�.e..c. Chris Ivey with United Food and Commercial Workers has provided the attached information to the Council. It shows total enclosed square footage for many Costco stores in the U.S. AS FCIy George L Xartwell r LOCAL 1036 President Chris Ivey Market Share Director ` I UNITED FOOD&COMMERCIAL WORKERS 816 Camarillo Springs Road,Suite X•R O.Hos 2878•Camarillo.CA 93011-2878 Main Office(805)3834300 FAX.• (805)481-6372 . Arroyo Grande(805)481-5666°� Residence(805)467-3318 I _ BIG BOX" COSTCO CONFINTIAL �� INVENTORY Observation-Date: -O _ '► f � Addressl�o (,�, City: Y e,11ems ( one: 0 zGi. County: Date Unit Opened: Month:. Year; /Y2 Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft r �— sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backfoom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq ft Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq ft. C NCILCS G CDD DIR OOver/Und&Attachment"A" AO G FIN DIR sq. ft. ❑ ATTORNEYG PW DIR The Nearest TARGET Is:_ ❑ CLERK/ORIG G POLICE CHF Miles The Nearest K- 13 UTIL DIR MART Is: ❑ HR DIR Mlles The Nearest WAi,-Mart Is: Miles Retain this document for Observations: future C;ouncu hath PO 3Y3LMD.- y3 ll ff ag �e f` LuZ �'�? - 3�3 �'� Y7 �ol�ei�e �')Q J I formation compiled from ds, observations and measurement, and. from sources thouo.t to be reliaIb e, i.e a compan managers and records. 1 of 2 �07 Al/ - BIG BOX" cosTco CONFIDrNTIAL IIWENTORY •� Observation Date: /D `2 Address: �f 'lad City: Ay ekt A - Zip.. Pho es(l 2(C 4 510 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year:j& Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): 4 Ra sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: �l�_ U d L 0^w k. 6HL',o 0'P_p sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. o sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area.Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: 01 r Information compiled from City Records, observations and measurement, and from sources thought ;n be reliable, i.e a compan _anagens and-records. 1 of 2 /AhA 1' " BIG BOX" cosTco CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: Adress:,�� et"fu ja�o j, �l/ ud City: j CtTlb`'e Zip. P ne: - vxa 9 County: Date Unit Opened Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): v� G sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: /�n,(p 7�_ sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is:_ Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: 3� OCR) C Information compiled fro City Recor bservations and measurement, and from sources thouet to be re is e, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 =. - " BIG BOXCOSTCO CON INVENTORY Observation Date: l0 Address: RCity: P Phone: ((,a1) '�f -yQ�(� County: /V1A C'SPP11 &A tf f.V �J f&,f m2 Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. L Enclosed Total Area:T � �' c `_ sq. ft. r Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per A sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area Use: pRC � /� sq. ft. Yr OOver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: �t 1 i Pe i'l,I t06Cc --poi- -5-0 n Information compiled frotbe *ia caor bservations and measurement, and `J from sources thought to , i.e. the company managers and records. p I of 2 " BIG BO - COSTCO CON>r ILENTUL LWEN TORY Observation Date:_16 C Address: (,V, �'�, IAjJ v e City: iT f Zip: 0 Phone: U- / _ '�3 7 7 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: //�. sq. ft: Enclosed Non-Sales Area, BaclQoom etc.. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non_Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. COver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: �5 y -a9 - a3 90 F-::� s�C w;�r 0,411 64e�z Y � I:P� (� �A n Information compiled fro City Records, o servations and measurement, and U from sources thought to , '. , e company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX COr n_ CONFILE ORY Observation Date: -o4 Address:-Zory, tj l.(lab 4eA Rue, City: Zip: Sty' Phone: 770 ) — 9 7 E0 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: /',�.1_e: t7 sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart is: Miles Observations: Information compiled froCity Recor servation and measurement, and from sources thought to'bala e, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 "BIG BO ESTCD CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: ddress: 6 nrA 2 ty: Zip: Phone: ( � - _0 I°l County: Date Unit Opened:Month: Year: 9 Manager Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: sq, ft, Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft.. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Myles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations:. wili en H hock cavo 9 �O Information compiled fro i$11k, cords, bservations and measurement, and. from sources thought to i.e. the company managers and records. N of 2 „ n iA BIG BOX Cos CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: Address:-/33q N. &U1,9 �. City:, 9A 1t AMS Zip: Phone: (- County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: ` j? (� ( t� ft. s4• Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. COver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: it 1. ,p . OInformation compiled fro it Reco observations and measurement, and from sources thought to be reliable, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BO �: cosTco 1 C046ENTL&L IIWENTORY Observation Date: /0 Address: X50 te,A ��f. City: - ARAA) c°.t 'Co Zip;- S� Phone: Y6 ) (el(o County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: `t� , ®a sq ft Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Bickroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. OOver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: yes- j X39 prnKN,�i bepr Yip - SV O Information compiled fro C`jjR bservations and measurement, and from sources thought to be reliable, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 BIG BO cosTco CON ; L PIVL'.` NTORY Observation Date: /0 '3 -01 Address: J yJ`�r \. i�A 82f" 310(/ City: �Ai LAA l��1_Zip: �� hone• ( S�)-- �7a - '�-Oa.( County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): -.sq. ft. nclosed Total Area: sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area,Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: CInformation compiled fro _ ity-Records bservations and measurement, and from sources thought to re is e, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" cosi CONFIOENTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: / y Address: /3 ,�` ra n ��84 City: f. ./Y1"O Zip: St1l e4,e,44AA e,1 �— Phone: e + 9��'7 County: QW Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Merge; Post Expansion Area(s): s9 8 Enclosed Total Area: ��e 4 sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. ft Enclosed Sales Area: s1• ft Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": s9 ft Current Non;Taxable Area In Use: , ft COver/Under Attachment "A" sq, ft The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: 6,de/) yokeliq Information compiled fromi Records, bservations and measurement, and Cfrom sources thought to be re is e, i.e. the company managers and records.. 1 of 2 BIG BO COSTCO CONFIDENTIAL EVVENTORY Observation Date: /(g., - -� Address: *7 50 CO3 EQ City: V=t �A fl. Zip: Phone: 9i) (p�,5� — g C,2� County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: /% 0 Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: OX sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area.Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. C The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: ` ` G ,q ���� .JrJ 1' - 3 ' Y 3DV —61.A f'AMM / V Q �C� ga , A)(W 'tJP { MrG4�P,( (V.l/C'n//bperl (Cr���l�f�,> 70 0,06 CInformation compiled fro ity Records observations and measurement, and from sources thought to , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" cosTco CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY Observation.Date: /0 -01 - 0t a`( ip:Address: o uANA City; f Z Phone: (�d o3 ) �� - �,/1 b County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. [Enclosed Total Area: 15� © a, dwi t A wh sq. R. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. OOver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: 3Ol ?a /1 61e14 6liti, s 17, Yi y O Information compiled fro ity Recor , observations and measurement, and from sources thought to be r , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" co no CONFIDE.PIAL INVENIXWR F Observation Date: I - o 3 00 I�Q)t.A � � City: J• rm 0 k(i eid Zip: SI" tr.ess: n : (�•3 ) 7 y0 - 6 3.�' County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): �1• ft• Enclosed Total Area: _ ���0 �0 �: sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. R. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. COver/Under Attachment"A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: _Miles Observations: CInformation compiled City Records, servation and measurement, and from sources thought to , '. . a company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" coFID>N srco - CONrTIAL. TORY Observation Date: l 0 c2( C= Address:��l�����0"� T ,dt f2d City-_A/2zip: Phone: (i;a5 ) - 53a�County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: •� - J ' sq. ft• Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft• Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. COver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: -a,ol"1- Ardes9e AA �T7onw Aect �2Gq 61'� J�3 Sr7,7 V:X, �►. / y, 2S Aces Information compiled fro ity R observations and measurement, and G from sources thought to� e. i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 • • 1 "46�e, r BIG BOX" COSTCO CONT L114TIAL INVENTORY # Observation Date: I'd O Address: M4,�j - City: Zip: Phone: (10S 75'79 9 5 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: j U _Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area:��� 33c sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft• Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current.Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft• COver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft• The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Masa Is: Miles Observations: O Information compiled m Records, observations and measurement, and from sources thought toCity a company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" C05TCO CONFIDE. TIAL INVENi'OR—Y # Observation Date: /D '(9 (9( O Address: g� eo 8 feo )-,-)Nve City:` t:,&— —Zip- : 1 �i12t.,1 eA��e Co-vtiv{� Phone: Ow) nigra- County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: sq. ft• Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: Doke', (30314� s� � -yra o (Yk ti &tl' -�'nq ��leS c2 � oi) 395 55 io Information compiled fro City Records,�observations and measurement, and G from sources thought to be , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX"' CosTco' CONMk NTIAL VENTORY Observation Date: 0 0 Address: Y 0 S - City:-? P' �� .Phone: (� 1 County: ��" Date Unit Opened::Month: Year. Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft• LEnc1:o:sjedjT=ota1Armea&. - sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area-Allowed Per Attachment""A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft- n Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. U The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: Information compiled froCity observations and measurement, and C from sources thought to be , Le. thecompany managers and records. 1 of 2 i. 1A M " BIG BOX" COSTCO CO INVENTORY Observation Date: D - 0 Address: Ave, City: ftiN_dw7'"Y Zip: -Ata 1 Phone: ( 1/0 County:. 7J Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: �_ 3 � Pc Ff sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. n Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart I,1s: Miles - Observations: 6 ,1 ok 3dA �6Ct � Rosa(;, �0 - — 'Crr pi ed fro CityRecor observations and measurement, and C from sources thought to be r , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2. " BIG BOX" cosTco ` - CONT)cor 1�1NU FIA NVENTORY iii# Obsery '6� ate: C7 -0 -0 -'Address: . - ity: gAft� 1TPhone: �`1 '1 - 0 � Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: T Post Expansion Area(s): s Enclosed Total Area: _ sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backfoom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" a . sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: �� T f�2 Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: ` Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: s ,Vt us� (ate \zj � l CInformation compiled fro ity Records, bservations and measurement, and from sources thought to re is e, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX' cosTco CON14 NTIAL INVENTORY # Observation Date: — Address: �� �i2 A N(��[w ,Q� City: Do is L Zip: Phone: (aA$ ) 3 �,� — a, 0 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: �`� 9�.Q sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A' sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: wi �1 Information comp1le6 c'-o City Records )observations and measurement, and �1 from sources thought to be re is e, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" COSTCO CONFi,jENTIAL INVENTORY #_. Observation Date: 0 O ` Address: I3 7S N. 1464 a1 AM L?' City: Zip: Phone: Q `]9 0 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Tot ea: I3�D, 97� sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backfoom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A". sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: OInformation compiled % m ity Recor , observations and measurement, and from sources thought to re ' , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 Mr =>^ .�Aw l� " BIG BOX" COSTCO CONF1ij, IAL INVENTORY # a Observation Date: 4 - Y' O Address: P86 �t e-edgy roe City: Zip: Phone: LIN County:,M44 t� L i Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: 17� 5 OC, sq. ft. 1 Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET.Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: (10"� 6leRlC— Sj'QSS 0 t2Pr+ ( �Sfnt� OInformation compiles I m City Records )observations and measurement, and from sources though. to ere is e, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 Al f�,uA " BIG BOX" COSTCO CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: 0/ Address: 0 0 uP W City: /�! ,� Zip: Phone: Mob) a- 4 L/7 o County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: , - sq, ft Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq, ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. OOver/Under Attachment "A ' sq. ft. The Nearest TAR Is: � Jr 0 S Miles The Nearest Is: Miles The Neares art Is: Miles Observations: 4Il - yob- O Information compiler ft. City Rec�Letlhe observations and measurement, and from sources though3 ,- company managers and records. 1 of 2 r " BIG BOX" osTco CONFIDENTIAL EWENTORY OObservation Date: l -0 a-o/ Address: 5�0 5 eA tfic, nJ W City:o Z Zip: Phone: (0 ) 5 g s ` ?0 0 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. I nclosed Total Area: sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backr6om etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment"A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. f� Over/Under Attachment "A. " sq. ft. �J The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: Ltd so - Information compiled fro City Records, . servation and measurement, and from sources though. >. a company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" Co5TCO CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: 10 4 �1-y C KAddress:3 50 City: _ Zip: one: (o¢.) � ham- '7/7 7 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: fe. sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. OOver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: t � ejon,p�; OInformation compiled fro City Records, bservations and measurement, and from sources though: To be re , te. the company managers and records. I of 2 " BIG BOX" cosrco C0NFIL NTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: /0 ,05 -01 O?i(,hone: lQ Ziddress: 3aa.O Ne?�>� 0 ' � 11eCity: M I�'.� du p:�s o(0 7r �� County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): �1 sq. ft. m Enclosed Total Area: / ad sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A."_ sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: �p N� /000 Wd4 000n ej �-f'ae �4 000 �� S1m f Z f Informafion compiled e_cords bservations and measurement, and K from sources �' V) , i.e. the company managers and records. � � � 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" osTco CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY # Observation Date: 0 ' U 01 Address: '41-00 �Asvllkd WA 4 City: Zip: Phone: 061 X89 Y1 o 0 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: _ sq. ft• Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. C, Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart is: Miles Observations: '33 y- X30 Aele a44�io� �"S �,0G O Information compiled fro ity Records,,)observations and measurement, and from sources thought to be liable, eche company managers and records. 1 of 2 Merv- " BIG BOX"" cosrco CONFIDENTIAL IPIVENTORY Observation Date: 0 CStele // Address: n/t 2 W& City: l�a n-w Zip: Gel hone: CW. q86 — a')-0 .3 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area. 0 S( sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft• Non-Taxable-Area-Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. OOver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: Information compiledffiCity Records, bservations and measurement, and. from sources thought to , .e. the company managers and records.. 1 of 2 A" BIGBOX" Cosrco CONI M C.IIWENTORY ` Observation Date: O JLIdI�� S /_ / ZI O A4 21a3 /, j I .fit! p: A \Phone. g( et ) 105YQ& gi- County: Date Unit Opened Month: Year. Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): / sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. OOver/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles bse-rvations: �J10 Information compiled ICity.R observations and measurement, and C� from sources thought to .e. the company managers and records. i oft V�" " BIG BOX" cosTco CONFIDENTIAL INVENTORY T# Observation Date: C s: 3 ')00 a Ag l✓ City: &f0_0*j4d Zip: Phone: g( , y-y 3 3 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: l `7�yY sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. O Over Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: Pity �A(y Aelgew SOY - 7VS 436-( Information compiledCity Records, servations and measurement, and C� from sources thought to , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" cosrco �� CONFIDE INVENTORY Observation Date: _n,"G Address: �/'7 �-S we ft 01, i2c� City: zip: 9� Phone: 0`�) Ma - o-.Arn.. County: Date Unit Opened: Month:. Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area. laot 08e-y. sq, ft, Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq, ft, Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles_ The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: v � Information compiled City Records servation and measurement, and from sources thought to e, i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 BIG BOX" srco CO■❑ NTIAL INVENTORY Observatiign Date: /0 O e� AJP,�, IV Address: Y �cl �c�2�� Zip: Phone: QR? _ _ f� N �n ww,r— County: Date Unit Opened: Month: �j 4 ear:G Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq, ft. Enclosed Total Area: / ?� sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: - sq. ft. O Over/Under Attachment "A" sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is:__ Miles The Nearest. K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL.-Mart Is: Miles Observations: ' —�- 000 well �- -�� S I z :1 eS ,� �5? q-af — �y6 � c Information compiler. froty Records, servations and measurement, and O from sources though. . .e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 fl - " BIG BO cosrco CONFID&NTIAL INVENTORY Observation Date: l 0 � Address: `a u c� eaj>t V(I c 2 City: r Zi P� Phone: � (a 1 County: Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager: Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: 1-- 7 5 $ sq. ft. Enclosed Non-Sales Area, BaclQoom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. OOver/Under Attachment "A ' sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is:_ Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: �A U LY) Information compilec froCity Rrds,,ecoobservations and measurement, and from sources thougl.: ':� be , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 " BIG BOX" COSTCO cowimftuL IIWENTORY Observation Date: 1 ('0 a, 0 � O z- ddress: Zip: Phone: y County: _ Date Unit Opened: Month: Year: Manager. Post Expansion Area(s): sq. ft. Enclosed Total Area: j - sq, ft Enclosed Non-Sales Area, Backroom etc. sq. ft. Enclosed Sales Area: sq. ft. Non-Taxable Area Allowed Per Attachment "A": sq. ft. Current Non-Taxable Area In Use: sq. ft. Over/Under Attachment "A ' sq. ft. The Nearest TARGET Is: Miles The Nearest K-MART Is: Miles The Nearest WAL-Mart Is: Miles Observations: 703 -75 a ',� OUB OInformation compiled fro ity Recor , observations and measurement, and from sources though! j te , i.e. the company managers and records. 1 of 2 FROM RICHARDSON PHONE NO. : 8057812504 _- Nov. 05 2001 01:1BPM P1 DATE i!-6-D ITEM#� 1 - I RICHARDSON PROPERTIES Real Estate Investments CptINCIL � � CDD DIR November 5, 2001 ly'AC O ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF RNEY p PW DIR LERKIORIa ❑ POLICE CHF SOH S O REC DIR O UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR To:The Honorable Mayor Settle and Members of the City Coun I9 Re: Retail Space Cap Ordinance I am a businessman and long time resident of San Luis. I can appreciate that you want to protect the economic environment and architectural character of San Luis Obispo, however, I do not believe that Ordinance "C" is the way: There are already too many controls and regulations on business, building, and growth in San Luis that actually discourage business. As a Real Estate Broker, I have worked with many businesses, developers, and builders in and out of this area. Restricting 'size" doesn't determine what "fits" into the community but merely sets a square footage precedent that keeps the Wal Marts out (and also excludes stores like Macy's). Local business should not operate in fear of the "big box" stores. I believe the key to economic vitality is design and function. The current governmental planning processes and controls (Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, etc:) have successfully provided effective rules for planning and building in the past. Rather than impose another cumbersome and complex ordinance, let the processes that are already in place do the job they were created to do. Thank you for the opportunity to expesss my opinion. Sincerely, c Charlie Richardson RECEIVED W? 0 2001 1 3L® CITY COUNCIL . 1042 Pacific Street,Suite E, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-6040 • FAX (805)781-2504 www.richardsonproperties.com FROM RICHARDSON PHONE NO. 6057612504Nov. 05 2001 01:16PM P2 r November 5, 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor Settly and Members of the City Council Re: Retail Space Cap Ordinance I am a 13 year resident of San Luis and I love living here. Like you and other members of our community, I very much want to protect the local economy and the architectural character of our precious little city. Although Ordinance "C" is well intentioned, I do not believe that it is a good way to reduce negative impacts on our community. The City already has too many regulations that tend to discourage business_ I feel that such complex rules threaten the economic vitality of San Luis and those of us who live in the community. The Architectural Review Commission recently passed design guidelines that, when used with the other current governmental planning processes and advisory committees, can provide a successful and effective basis to safeguard planning and building in San Luis. In my opinion, design and function is the key to economic vitality. Size alone does not determine what "fits' into the community. Rather than impose another cumbersome ordinance . . . please let the processes that are already in place do the fob you created them to do. The existing processes can be further refined or streamlined if necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to expesss my opinion. Very truly yours, Barbara Ellen Barker MING AGENDA DAT' ITEM �NCIL, D DIR To: riunuraoie iviayur and City Cuuncii AO ❑ FIN DIR A Q<AO. ❑ FIRE CHIEF CJ R0NEY PW DIR From: Uave itoiiicru � CLERfVOR10 0 POLICE CHF 111 T HEADS C2 REC DIR Subject: frig Box iceguiations, Item 7- November 6, 2001 f�' 0 UTIL DIR HR DIA When the Council considered an earlier version of this Ordinance, I. ✓.�-t submitted the attached comments which are still applicabie. My Y (�a conclusion then was that this ordinance was unnecessary and perhaps detrimental to the community. The current version is even more detrimental than the previous one. The regulations are now becoming so complicated that only a City Planner with the regulations in hand and the City Attorney at his elbow will be able to give a proper interpretation. The proposed Parking MAXIMUM requirements will be particularly troublesome. Cities adopt MINIMUM standards to assure viability of stores and reduce adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed MAXIMUM standards will result in heavily loaded or overloaded parking lots during peak demand periods such as between Thanksgiving and New Years. It may also force extra vehicles into adjacent neighborhoods such as , occurred when Scolari's lot first opened. Trader Joe's parking is often uncomfortable, however it was developed under the previous standard. There might also be an unintended consequence with the MAXIMUM parking standard. Parking is often a limiting factor in Shopping Center design. With this standard it will be quite possible to pave the same size area for parking but increase the number of stores. In my view, the entire ordinance is unnecessary, may well have unintended negative effects, and will not prove beneficial to the City. The ordinance falls under the general classification of meddling, and should be denied. RECEIVED 6xv 0 " 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL W 1 L Dave Romero August 31, 2001 Honorable Mayor St City Council, Subject: Proposed Regulation of Large Retail Establishments When the City proposes new regulations, it should ask 3 questions: 1. What is the problem? 2. Is the proposed regulation the most effective approach? 3. What are the negative implications of the regulations? 1. What is the problem? According to staff reports, the concern is that large stores may lack architectural character, will create undesirable visual impacts and are not in keeping with our small town atmosphere. My response: The detailed review process in SLO does an exceptional job of assuring quality aesthetics, building design, visual and neighborhood compatibility. Recent examples are Copelands Sports in the Downtown Center, Vons at the Marigold Center, Ralphs and Gottschalks on Madonna Road. None would have been allowed under the Planning Commission proposal. 2. Are the proposed regulations the most effective approach? My response: The current City review process is more than sufficient to assure quality design. I believe the proposed regulations could easily be circumvented by constructing two smaller stores in place of one large one. 3. What are the negative implications? My response: If the proposed regulations had been in effect, we would not have in their current form: Gottschalks, Sears, Vons, Copeland Sports, Food-4-Less, and Ralphs. Much of the City vitality, convenient shopping and sales tax would be affected, and San Luis Obispo would be a poorer place. The proposed ordinance would make these stores non-conforming, which impacts long term plans for keeping these as vital businesses. This ordinance might preclude development of the new Copeland Center, which many have warmly received.' The ordinance might preclude a number of stores the citizens have indicated they would like to see in SLO, such as Target, ,Pennys, or even Nordstrams. Conclusion: I believe SLO is best served by NOT adopting any ordinance restricting retail building size. If the Council does pass such an ordinance, I suggest the original staff recommendation (A) would give the most flexibility and have the least adverse effect on the community. Dave Romero PS Suggested changes in wording of Ordinance: pg 2-11 2nd Whereas - Did Police and Fire testify that servicing one large building presents a "significantly higher commitment of resources" than servicing 2 buildings, each half that size? If not, the statement is misleading and the Whereas clause should be eliminated. pg 2-12 - Section 2, Findings - I believe the public welfare will be, adversely affected by making a number of existing stores non- conforming (thus affecting their viability) and by limiting the Public's choices in allowing new and desirable stores to be developed in SLO. I suggest the term "welfare" be deleted.