|
#07-3278 •
<br /> April 11,2007
<br /> Page 9
<br /> 2. Eliminate Parameter 2: - " ' b ".
<br /> The effect of tlus change is self-explanatory. The term "pharmacy/convenience store" was
<br /> , , used in 2004 to generically define the type of common retail facility operated by
<br /> Walgreens, CVS, Snyders, etc. Eliminating this limitation potentially creates a much wider
<br /> range of opportunities for the site. .
<br /> 3. Eliminate Parameter 3: - "''',,^ � ,� �,..:�a;,,�.� ��,,,» �,.,<.,, ,,,, ,.,,a;.,;�,,.,� �o,,.,,.+ ,
<br /> b
<br /> !7 .
<br /> b � . . .
<br /> The effect of this change would be that no buildings on the site would be limited in size by
<br /> the Comp Plan. An argument can be made that the proper venue for placing size limits on .
<br /> buildings, if needed,would be via the PUD rezoning process.
<br /> In considering whether to merely re-instate Amendment #2 with the above requested revisions,
<br /> Planning Commission should carefully review the language of Amendment #2 to determine
<br /> whether it supports the revisions that reduce or eliminate the limitations on retail. Specifically,
<br /> do the following excerpts still ring tnie absent a definition of"neighborhood-scale"retail uses? •
<br /> . -"This mixed use neighborhood would benefit from nearby neighborhood-scale retaii us�s that wuuld
<br /> serve the neighborliood."
<br /> - "The retail uses that would most benefit the mix of residential and non-residential uses in the
<br /> �neighborhood, would be a neighborhood-scale pharmacy/convenience store and neighborl?ood-scale
<br /> food-oriented uses."
<br /> Staff would suggest that a more in-depth review of the impacts of retail uses may lead to a
<br /> comprehensive re-write of the basis for allowing retail, and you should consider whether a set of
<br /> performance standards defining�goals to be met, should replace the prescriptive `parameters' in �
<br /> the Amendment #2 language. The City Attorney has suggested that Amendment #2 was
<br /> unusually restrictive in its scope, allowing only certaiil types of retail use, limiting the size of �
<br /> buildings, etc., which might better be left to the PUD rezoning that will ultimately occur with
<br /> this property.
<br /> It may be more desirable to establish within the CMP certain `big picture' performance standards
<br /> � that any retail user must meet in order to gain PUD rezoning, rather than establishing an
<br /> inflexible list of`acceptable' retail uses with buildings of cei-tain sizes. These standards would in � �
<br /> some cases be purposely subjective, ultimately giving Council the ability to accept or reject a .
<br /> specific proposal. Defining these standards will be more difficult than simply adding "grocery
<br /> store" to the list of allowable uses, but in the end may provide the City with needed flexibility in
<br /> determining whether a proposed use (or chan�e in use) of a building is appropriate. •
<br /> ' . � �••ej •Ai': . .� il � '
<br />
|