Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 17, 2004 G-03 PHCITY OF Lom COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE- Conduct Public Hearing to consider the PlanningCommission's recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt a Zoning Ordine.rice Amendment ad.ding Chapter 17.58 regarding Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments, BACKGROUND INFORMATIOW For the past year and a half, the Planning Commission has discussed the design issues surrounding large scale retail development, First, with the Lowe's project, now with the pending Wal dart Supercenter, The discussion turned to direction for staff in December 2003 as the Commission was considering the proposed Design Guidelines contained in the Draft Development Code. The discussion centered on the design differences found in projects of varying size. As a result of staff's prior research, the set of standards that were enacted by the City of Fort Collins Colorado were used as a basis for the regulations ultimately approved by the Commission, This set of standards applies to any project that has a building that exceeds 25,000 square feet. As such, it is dearly aimed at more than just what most consider "Big Box". As an example, these requirements would apply to any of the typical shopping centers in Lodi including Lakewood Mall, Vineyard, Sunwest and Westgate, The standards provide direction for both site plan and architecture whenever the applicability standards are met including expansions of existing projects. As, noted in the attached minutes from the Planning Commission's two public hearings, a central issue during the testimony period was to add a maximum size limitation, Subsequent to the end of the. first public hearing on January 28, 2004, the Commission directed staff to bring back suggested language for two alternatives. One would be a straight maximum allowed for square footage and the other would require the approval of a Use Permit when the building's square footage exceeded some number. During the second public hearing held on February 11, 2004, the Commission spent a great deal of time debating these alternatives as well as not having a maximum at all. After several failed motions, the Commission finally decided to move forward with this set of standards and continue to discuss the maximum -size issue at a future meeting. That discussion has been scheduled for March 24th. I should note thattherehas been some confusion on the part of the public regarding their ability to discuss a maximurnize during the public hearings, Chairman Mattheis did not quash discussion of size, but did restrict discussion surrounding Wal Mart specifically. Those people who wanted to speak about Wal Mart were instructed to hold their comments for the "Public Comment" item on the agenda. APPROVED. Council Communication March 17, 2004 Page 2 Staff and the Planning Commission feel that the standards before the City Council will result in more ae-5the tic development in Lodi and should be adopted as recommended. FUNDING: None Konradt Bartlarn Community Development Director KBilw Attachments DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHM"TS Community Development Department Draft February 11, 2004 11111 1!1111111 Jill: 111111 111111 Jill 111!1111 F 1111111111111 111111111111111111111, 11111 1! 11 111111,11p 1 111 17.58.010 - Purpose The City of Lodi adopted this ordinance on large retail developments - 'superstores" - to provide the community with clear and enforceable policies to mitigate visual impacts. These guidelines provide the opportunity to set standards for future developments to ensure that future development fits with the expectations and meets the needs of the community. These standards and guidelines are a response to dissatisfaction with corporate chain marketing strategy dictating design that is indifferent to local identity and interests. The main goal is to encourage development that contributes to Lodi as a unique place by reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways. Large retail developments depend on high visibility from major public streets, In turn, their design determines much of the character and attractiveness of major streetscapes in the city. The marketing interests of many corporations, even with strong image making design by professional designers, can be potentially detrimental to community aspirations and sense of place when they result in massive individual developments that do not contribute to or integrate with the city in a positive way. Lodi already has a development review system that promotes solutions to these general iss-Lies. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is I to augment those existing criteria with more specific interpretations that apply to the design of large retail store developments. These standards and guidelines require a basic level of architectural variety, compatible scale, pedestrian and bicycle access, and mitigation of negative impacts. The standards are by no means intended to limit creativity; it is the City's hope that they will serve as a useful tool for design professionals engaged in site-specific design in context. They are placed within the framework of the Zoning Ordinance, which provides for variance from the requirements if the proposal is equal to or better than the City's requirements. 1758.020 - Applicability The following standards and guidelines are intended to be used as a design aid by developers proposing large, retail developments in community regional shopping centers or as uses -by -right; and as an evaluation tool by the City staff, Planning Commission, and Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee in their review processes. These standards and guidelines apply to all retail establishments of more than 25,000 square feet. The "Intent" is provided in order to educate planners, design consultants, developers and City staff about the design objectives while the "Standards" are mandatory. The intent and standards are to be used in conjunction with all development criteria of the Lodi Municipal Code. 17.58.022— Variances The Planning Commission is empowered to grant variances to the mandatory standards under the circumstances provided by the California Government Code. 1758.031 - Intent, Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearances of large retail buildings and provide visual interest that will be consistent with the community's identity, character and scale. This is to encourage a more liuman scale that Lodi residents will be able to identify with their community, 17.58.032 Standards: A. Facades greater than 100 feet in length, measured horizontally, shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least projtcTions / rteessesshall coniprise at feast 20% of fiacade lenghtvvith a minim urn depth of 3% of fiaca& le:ng(h 0 % of the length of the fad.ade and extending at least 20 percent of the length of the facade, No uninterrupted length of any fagade shall exceed .100 horizontal feet. B, Ground flex- facades that face public streets shall have- arcades, display widow, entry areas, awnings, or ether such features along no less than 60 percent of their horizontal length. ni ga uin* i c t .r a e:wc must s tai fi i ` ; of total f wade length libr a. y fia ade abuaing a public stTrvt 17.58.041 ® Intent: The presence of smaller retail stores gives a center a "friendlier" appearance by creating variety, breaking up large expanses, and expanding the range of the site's activities. Windows and window displays of such stares should be used to contribute to the visual interest of exterior facades. The standards presented in this section are directed toward these situations where additional, smaller stores, with separate, exterior customer entrances are: located in principal buildings. F — tan Where principal buildings contain additional, separately owned stares which occupy less than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of grass floor area, with separate, exterior customer entrances. A. The street level facade of such stores shall have storefront windows between the height of three feet and eight feet above the walkway rade for no less than 60 percent of the horizontal length of the building facade of such additional stares. B. Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills, shutters, or other such forms of framing. 4 17.58.050 - Detail Features 17.58.051 - Intent: Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest at the scale of the pedestrian, reduce massive aesthetic effects, and recognize local character. The elements in the following standard should be integral parts of the building fabric, and not superficially applied trim or graphics, or paint. 17s58.052 - Standard A, Building facades must include a repeating pattern that shall include no less than three of the elements listed below: .1 I , Color change, 2. Texture change. 3. Material module change, 4. Expression of architectural or structural bay through a change in plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal, or projecting rib. reveals .yep"'MAN projecting ribs structural bay layout B, At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. C, All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than thirty (30) feet, either horizontally or vertically. 19 1a W Roofs 1 e - Intent: Variations in roof limes should he used to add interest to, and reduce the massive scale of, large buildings, Roof features should complement the character of adjoining neighborhoods. 17-58..062 -®Standard: Roofs shall have no less than two of the following features: A. Paxapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment such as HVAC units from public view. The average height: of such parapets shall not exceed 15% of the height of the supporting wall and such parapets shall not. at arra shall �, �:�� rti 1.5% cif ! sup�p€�xting point exceed one -.third of the wall height height of the supporting gall. Such parapets shall feature la;Uat heights three dimensional cornice Shall n0L mcced .1.3 of Supporting treatment, wall height B. Overhanging eaves, extending no less than 3 feet past the supporting walls. C. Sloping roofs that do not exceed the average height of the supporting walls, with an average slope greater than or equal to 1 foot: of vertical rise for every 3 feet of horizontal ruin and less than or equal to 1 foot of vertical rise for every l foot of horizontal run, D. Three € r more roof slope planes. M 17,5 8.071 - Intent: Exterior building materials and colors comprise a significant part of the visual impact of a building, Therefore, they should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods. M - Standard: A, predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials, These include, without limitation: I, clay brick . wood rock or other- native stone 4, stucco, of varied finishes, 5. tinted, textured, concrete masonry units B. Facade calors shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tore colors, The use of hula intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited, C. Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, but .neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent. areas. D. Predominant exterior building materials shall not include the following: 1 _ smooth -faced concrete. block . smooth finished tilt -up concrete panels 3. pre -fabricated steel panels, except as an architectural roofing material 7 MY"HUMI: w M58.081- Intent: Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation making them easy to identify both day and night as well as providing aesthetically pleasing character to the building, The standards identify desirable entryway design features. M - tax A. Each principal building on a site shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances utilizing no less than three of the following to become the most prominent features, 1. canopies or porticos e overhangs 3. recesses/ projections 4- arcades e raised corniced parapets over the door . peaked roof forms (e . gable or hip) 7, arches e outdoor patios 9. display windows 10n architectural details such as the work and moldings which are integrated into the building structure and design 11, integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and./or places for sitting Where additional stores will he located in the principal building, each such store shall have at least one exterior customer entrance, which shall conform to the above requirements, M58.091 - Intent: All facades of a building which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should contribute to the pleasing scale features of the building and encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to the front facade. ITS8.091 - Standards: All building facades which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets shall comply with the requirements of, Section 17. 8.030 of these Design Standards and Guidelines, I 17.58. 101 - Intent: Large retail buildings should feature multiple entrances, which reduce walking distances from parking areas and public sidewalks, and provide convenient access to individual stores, or departments within a store. Multiple entrances can also mitigate the effect of uninterrupted walls and neglected areas that are often facing bordering land uses. IT 58. 102 - Standard: A, All sides of a principal building that face an abutting public street shall feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building faces more than two public streets, this requirement shall only apply to tN,,,o sides of the building; the side facing the primary street, and another side facing a second street. Movie theatres are exempt from this requirement. I 9 Public Street Smaller Retail Stores with Customer Entrances Anchor Store I s ustomer Entrance I- go 1@ 11 - Off - Street Parking Areas M58.111 - Intent: Farling areas should provide safe, convenient, and efficient access. Parking should be distributed around large buildings in order to shorten the distances between buildings and public sidewalks, and reduce the visual impact of one large paved surface, With buildings located closer to streets, the scale of the complex is reduced, walking is encouraged, and architectural details take on added importance. Covering the ground with asphalt has several long --term environmental impacts including excessive storm water run-off during the winter and tremendous increases in the ambient beat radiated by the asphalt, in order to provide adequate parking while practicing good stewardship of resources, the City has established a minimum and maximum range of off-street parking for lame retail operations. 1a .112 - Stan A. No more than fifty ( 0) percent of the cuff -street parking area for the lot; tract: or area of land devoted to the lame retail establishment shall be located between the front facade of the large retail establishm e, t and the abutting streets (the "Front Parkin Area"). . The front parking area shall be determined by drawing a line from the front corners of the building, parallel with the building sides, straight to the public street forming a 90 degree angle with the front facade, B. Parking spaces in the Front Parking Area shall be counted to include all parkin.g spaces within the boundaries of the Front Parking Area, including: (i) all partial parking spaces if the part inside the Front Parking Area boundary lines constitutes more than. one- half ('X�2) of the parking space, and (ii) all parking spaces associated with any pad sites located within the Front Parking Area boundaries. C. The minimum um number of off-street parking spaces to be provided by a large-scale retail operation shall be 2 spaces for every 1,€ 00 square feet of building space. The maximum number of off-street parking spaces shall not exceed the following: Detail: Five (5) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space Restaurant: Fifteen (15) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space 10 Fitness/Flealth Club. Six (6) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space For phased developments, parking areas shall only be constructed when the adjoining building for which the parking is required is built, Additional parking stalls, beyond the maximums provided, may be allowed when developed in a multi-level structure with Planning Commission approval. D. Parking lot light poles shall not exceed a height of 25 feet. E_ Landscaping in parking areas shall incorporate such material, as necessary, in order to achieve a minimum 50% shading requirement within 5 years of planting. M58.120 - Back Sides 17-58.121 - Intent; The rear or sides of buildings often present an unattractive view of blank walls, loading areas, storage areas, HVAC units, garbage receptacles, and other such features. Architectural and landscaping features should mitigate these impacts. 17.58.122 - Standard: A. The minimum setback for any building facade shall be thirty- five (35) feet fro the nearest property line, & I Where the facade of a large scale retail building faces a public street that is adjacent to an existing or planned residential zone boundary or uses, an earthen berm no less than 6 feet in height, containing evergreen trees planted at intervals of 20 feet on center, or the equivalent in clusters, shall be provided. C. Garbage receptacles shall be constructed of solid textured masonry material with a. decorative masonry cap. The gates frames shall be constructed of heavy gauge steel and provided with a solid opaque finish. Enclosures shall be provided with a cover such that storm water run-off from the enclosure is minimized. 17.58. 130 - Outdoor Storage, Trash Collection, and Loading Areas 17.58.131-1 t ,t: Loading areas and outdoor storage areas exert visual and noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, These areas, when visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets, should be screened, recessed or enclosed. While screens and recesses can effectively mitigate these impacts, the selection of inappropriate screening materials can exacerbate the problem. Appropriate locations for loading and outdoor storage areas include areas between buildings, where more than one 1i building is located on a site and such buildings are not more than 40 feet apart, or on those sides of buildings that do not have customer entrances. . M 132 - tam A. Areas for outdoor storage, truck parking, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall not be visible from abutting streets. B. No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall be located within 20 feet of any public street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way. , Loading docks, true parking, outdoor storage, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash collection, trash compaction, and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out, of view from adjacent properties and public streets, and no attention is attracted to the functions by the use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the budding; and landscape. D, Non -enclosed areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory shall be permanently defined and screened with landscaping, walls aid, or fences. Materials, colors, and design of screening walls and/or fences and the coven shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building. if such areas are to be covered, thea the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building. 17. 58.140 Pedestrian and bicycle Flows 17.58.141 - Intent: Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility opens auto -oriented developments to the neighborhood, reducing traffic impacts and enabling the development to project a friendlier, more inviting image. This section sets forth standards for public sidewalks and internal circulation systems that can provided user-friendly access as well as pedestrian safety, shelter, and convenience within the center grounds. 17.58.142 - Standard.- . Sidewalks at least 8 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways, no less than 8 feet in width, shall be provided from the public sideway or right-of-way to the principal customer entrance of all principal buildings on the site, At a n-iinim um, walkways shall connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but not limited to, transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry paints, and shall feature adjoining landscaped areas that include trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds, ground covers, or other such materials for no less than 50 percent of their length, C, Sidewalks, no less than 8 feet in width, shall be provided along the full length of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance, and along any facade abutting public parking areas. A minimum six (6) foot wide landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk, except where features such as arcades or entry ways are part of the fa(;ade. D, Internal pedestrian walkways provided in conformance with Part (b.) above shall provide weather protection features such as awnings or arcades within 30 feet of all customer entrances. E, All internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as the attractiveness of the walkways. Traffic calming measures shall be incorporated where pedestrian walkways intersect with drive aisles. F. Bicycle circulation shall be separated from vehicular traffic and shall be provided from each public street access to bicycle parking areas required throughout the site. 1.7.58.150 - Central Features and Community Spaces M58.151 ® Intent: Buildings should offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces, and amenities. Entrances and parking lots should be con -figured to be functional and inviting with walkways conveniently tied to logical destinations. Bus stops and drop-off/pick-up points should be considered as Integral parts of the configuration, Pedestrian ways should be anchored by special design features such as towers, arcades, porticos, pedestrian light fixtures, bollards, planter walls, and other architectural elements that define circulation ways and outdoor spaces. Examples of outdoor spaces are plazas, patios, courtyards, and window shopping areas. The features and spaces should enhance the building and the center as integral parts of the community fabric, 17.58.152 - Standard: A. Each retail establishment subject to these standards shall contribute to the establishment or enhancement of community and public spaces by providing at least two of the following - patio ' /seating area, pedestrian plaza with benches, transportation center, window shopping walkway, outdoor playground area, kiosk area, water feature, clock tower, or other such deliberately shaped area and/or a focal feature or amenity that, in the judgment of the 13 Planning Commission, adequately enhances such community and public spaces. B. All such areas shall have direct access to the public sidewalk net -work and such features shall not be constructed of materials that are inferior to the principal. materials of the building and landscape. 17,5&160 - Delivery/ Loading Operations Intent - Delivery and loading operations should not disturb adjoining neighborhoods, or other uses. 1.7.58-162 - Standard. A. No delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction, or other such operations shall be permitted between the hours of 10.00 p.m, and 7:00 a,m, unless the applicant submits evidence that sound barriers between all areas for such operations effectively reduce noise ernissions to a level of 60 db, as measured at the lot line of any adjoining property. B. Delivei-y trucks shall not be allowed to remain running in an idle state during loading and unloading activities. MI v k , MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department 4 e Pursuant to Planning Co amission dir�ctaon at your last meeting, this item, is being brought to you once again as a public hearing. Staff has amended the exhibit of the Resolution consistent with the discission that took place. Pease nate that additions are shown underlined and deletions shown as strike out. Hopefully this will facilitate review of tht� desired modifications, The one provision that I wanted to point specifically pertains to a maximum square footage standard. You will find this as a new Section 17.58,021. We have provided the two alternatives requested with the actual number left blank, Staff' is not recommending either option be included in this set of standards for the various reasons already stated. R. ectively Submitted, onradt a tlaM Conununity Development.Director irector ,attachment. Draft Resolution WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested amendment and addition to the Municipal Code regarding Design Standards for Large Scale Retail Establislunents; mid WHEREAS, the proposed amendment and additions to the Zoning Ordinance will affect all properties as described wide -in the City of Lodi; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred, NOW, THER-ETORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning Conu-nission of the City of Lodi as follows: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is covered by the general rule that CE QA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of design standards has no possibility to have any significant effect on the onvironrricnt and therefore is eaempt. 2. The Planning Commission finds that approval of the zoning amendments and additions will result in good planning practice and be to the benefit of the population by providing specific standards by which large scale retail establishments must adhere in design of developments. 3, That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the, attached text amendment and additions found in Exhibit A, Date: February 1!, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting hold on February 11, 2004 by the following vote: AYES-. Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN. Commissioners, ATTEST. Secretary, Plannhig Commission Large ScaleRetufl. doe 17-581.010 - Purpose The City of Lodi adopted this ordinance on large retail developments - Usuperstores" - to provide the community with clear and enforceable policies to mitigate visual impacts, These guidelines provide the opportunity to set standards for future developments to ensure that future development fits with the expectations and Tneets the needs of the community, These standards and guidelines are a response to dissatisfaction with corporate chain marketing strategy dictating design that is indifferent to local identity and interests. The main goal is to encourage development that contributes to Lodi as a unique place by reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways. Large retail de-velopments depend on high visibility frorn major public streets. In turn, their design determines much of the character and attractiveness of major streetscapes in the city. The marketing interests of many corporations, even with strong image making design by professional designers, can be potentially detrimental to community aspirations and sense of place when they result in massive individual developments that do not contribute to or integrate with the city in a positive way. Lodi already ha.s a development review system that promotes solutions to these general issues. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is The "Intent" is provided in order to educate planners, design consultants, developers and City staff about the design objectives while the "Standards" are mandatory. The intent and standards are to be used in corijunction with all development criteria of the Lodi Municipal Code, ew and ap VLoyalJ __- 1.7.58,024--922- Variances The Planning Commission is empowered to grant variances to the maiidatory standards under the circumstances provided by the Califomia Government Code, 17,5&030 - Facades and Exterior Walls 1758.031 - Intent: Facades should be articulated to reduce the rnassive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearances of large retail ildings and provide visual interest that will be consistent with the community's identity, character and scale. This is to encourage a more human scale that Lodi residents will be able to identify with their community. 20% of facade lenghi with a minimum depth of 3% of facade length 17. 58.032 Standards: A. Facades greater than 100 feet in length, measured horizontally, shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least 3% of the length of the faqade and extending at least 20 percent of the length of the facade. No uninterrupted length of any facade shall exceed 100 horizontal feet. B. Ground floor facades that face public streets shall have arcades, display windows, entry areas, awnings, or other such features along no less than 60 percent of their horizontal length. WVQPCMI�l AWNING% ENTRYARCLUS XOCADVIS Miroming fear umssuch as these must total of total 9'acadt length (brally f4cadc ahiufting a public stet 17. 58.041 - Intent. The presence of smaller retail stores gives a. center a "friendlier" appearance by creating variety, breaking up large expanses, and expanding the range of the site's activities, Windows and window displays of such stores should be used to contribute to the visual interest of exterior facades. The standards presented in this section are directed toward those situations where additional, smaller stores, with separate, exterior customer cntrances are located in principal buildings. 17. 58.042 - Standard. Where principal buildings contain additional, separately owned stores which occupy less than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area, with separate, exterior customer entrances. A, The street level facade of such stores shall have storefront windows between the height of three feet and eight feet above the walkway grade for no less than 60 percent of the horizontal length of the building facade. of such additional stores, B. Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills, shutters, or other such forms of framing. I. Color change. 20 Texture cha 3- Material module change. 4. Expression of architectural or structural bay through a cbange i plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal, or projecting rib. 5 projecting ribs structural bay layout B, At least one of these elements shall repeat horizonWly. , All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than thirty (30) feet, either horizontally or vertically. Roofs 17.5-8.060 _ 179 - Intent: Variations ire roof lines should be used to add interest to, and reduce the massive scale of, largebuildings, Roof futures should complement the .l character of adjoining ei hborhoods. 17, - Standard-. Roofs shill have no less than two of the following features. A. Parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment such s HVAC units from public view. The average height of such parapets shall Trot exceed 15% of the height of average the supporting wall and such parapet bei h€ parapets shall not at any shall not exceed 15% of supporting point exceed care -third of the wall height height of the supporting will. Such pits shell feature paVapet heights three dimensional cornice s.IAaII 13Ot exceed 1/3 of supporting treatment, wall beig,t , Overhanging eaves, extending no less than 3 feet past the s-upporting walls. C. Sloping roofs that do not exceed the average height of the supporting wills, with an average slope greater than or equal to 1 foot of vertical rise for every 3 feet of horizontal run and less than or- tqu l to 1 foot of vertical rise for every 1 foot of horizontal run. D, Three or more roof' dope planes. 6l I 7.58.070 - Materials and Colors 17. 58.071 - Intent: Exterior building materials and colors comprise a significant part of the visual impact of a Wilding. Therefore, they should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods. 17®58.072 - Standard: A, Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials. The, -,e include, without limitation: I. clay brick 2 . wood 3, Tivef-rock or other native stone 4, stucco, of varied finishes. &5. tinted, textured, concrete masonry units B, Facade colors shall be to reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited. C, Building trim and accent area, may feature brighter colors, including. primary colors, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable. feature for building trim or accent areas, D. Predominant exterior building materials shall not include the following. 1. smooth -faced concrete block 2, smooth finished tilt -up concrete panels 3. pre -fabricated steel panels, except as an architectural roofing material 7 1 1. - Intent: Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation making them easy to identify bath day and might as well as providing aesthetically pleasing character to the building. The standards identify desirable entryway design features. R58,0$2 - Standard- A, tam a aa Each principal building on a site shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances utilizing no less than three of the following. to become the most prominent features; 1, canopies or porticos overhangs 3. recesses/ projections A arcades . raised corniced parapets over the door . peaked roof forms (e.g. gable or hip) '. arches , outdoor patios . display windows o architectural details such as the work and moldings which are integrated into the building structures and design 11, integral planters or wing galls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places for sitting B. Where additional stores will be located in the principal building, each s-zch stave shall have at bast one exterior customer entrance, which shall conform to the above requirements. Intent All facades of a building which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should contribute to the pleasing scale features of the building and encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to the frost facade. 1758.091 - Standards: All building facades which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public; streets shall comply with the requirements cif, Section 17.58.030 of these Design Standards and Guidelines. 81 ® - Pedestrian Entrances a 91 17,58J11 - Intent: Parking areas should provide safe, convenient, and efficient access, Parking should be distributed around large buildings in order to shorten the distances between buildings and public sidewalks, and reduce the visual impact of one large paved. surface. With buildings s located closer to streets, the scale of the complex is reduced, walling is encouraged, and architectural details tike on added importance. B. Parking spaces in the Front Parking Area shall be counted, to include all parking spaces within the boundaries of the Front Parking area, including: (i) all partial parking spaces if the part inside the Front Parking Area boundary limes constitutes more than one-- half (1/2) of the parking space, and (ii) all parking spaces associated with any pad sites located within the Front Parking Area boundaries, , The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided by a lar=ge-scale retail operation shall be 2 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. a: ,M - N > The maximum number of off-street -Parkina sDaces shall not exceed the o 10 1 Retail; Four aces for_ever l 000s usre feet of b i din §RAce Restaurant: Fifteen s cz eve I1�e feet �f builcin s ace Fir 1--1/Health Club: & s12aces for every 1,000 s uare feet f b ildi a e built. Additional r zn st ill and the maximums rovi ed ma be allowed when develn ed in a multi-level structure with Planning CO Missign wale D. Par kino,lit li t ales shall not exceed lei ht of 5 feet. trees larzted at inievls cif feet �xr ccratea car tie e taivIent in clusters shall be r9yided. C. Garbage receptacles shall be constructed of solid textured masonry material with a decorative masonry cap. The gates frames shall be constructed of heavy gauge steel and provided with a solid opaque finish. Enclosures shall be provided with a cover such that storm water run-off frorn the enclosure is minimized, 17Z8.132 - Standard. A. Areas for outdoor storage, truck parking, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall not be visible from abutting streets. B, No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall be located within 20 feet of any public street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way, C, Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash collection, trash compaction, and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets, and no attention is attracted to the functions by the use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. D_ Non -enclosed areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory shall be permanently defined and screened with landscaping, walls andj or fences. Materials, colors, and design of screening walls and/or fences and the cover shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building, If such areas are to be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building, A 17.58.141 - Intent® Pedestrian gnd_bicc�e accessibility opens auto -oriented developments to y _ the neighborhood, reducing traffic impacts and enabling the development to project a friendlier, more inviting image. This section sets forth standards for public sidewalks and internal pede&triaia circulation 12 1 17.5 8. 151 - Intent'. Buildings should offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces, and amenities. Entrances and parking lots should be configured to be functional and inviting with walkways conveniently tied to logical destinations. Bvis stop,,;-, and drop- off/ pick-up points should be considered as integral parts of the configuration. Pedestrian ways should be anchored by special design features such as towers, arcades, porticos, pedestrian light fixtures, bollards, planter walls, and other architectural elements that define circulation ways and outdoor spaces. Examples of outdoor spaces are plazas, patios, courtyards, and window shopping areas. The features and spaces should enhance the building and the center as integral parts of the community fabric. M58.152 - Standard*. AEach retail establishment subject to these standards shall contribute to the establishment or enhancement of community and public spaces by providing at least two of the following: patio/ seating area, pedestrian plaza with benches, transportation center, window shopping walkway, outdoor playground area, kiosk area, water feature, clock tower, or other such deliberately shaped area and/or a focal feature or amenity that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, adequately enhances such community and public spaces, B. All such areas shall have direct access to the public sidewalk n.etwork and such features shall not be constructed of materials that are inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. 117 17.58.161 - Intent. Delivery and loading operations should not disturb adjoining neighborhoods, or other uses. 17.58.162 - Sta.ndard-. A. No delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction, or other such operations shall be permitted between the hours of 10:00 p,m, and 7-00 @L,m. unless the applicant submits evidence that sound barriers between all areas for such operations effectively reduce noise emissions to a level of 60 db, as measured at the lot line of any adjoining property. 14 1 B, Delivery trucks shall not be allowed to remain running in an idle state d-uring loading and unloading activities. 15 j El MFMORAINNDU'-K City of Lodi, Community Development Department Fp Ir o: Planning Commissiot) From: Comin.unity Deve.lopmcnt Departnnent Date: January 28, 2004 Sul3;ect: Design Stwidards for Large Scale Detail Establishments At the, Hannirig Con-in-ussion's direction, staff has prepared the attached Resolution with lm losarp,s for your considQration. The Resolution establishes Chapter 17°58 of the Lodi Zoning Ordinance adding Design Standards for Large Scale Retail Establishments, hc, standards utilize the City of port Collins, Colorado, Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Detail E stab] i shnionts as the foundation of this new set of regulations. aside fronn formattirig changes, the other modifications that are shown include the minimum size of thte --stablishment when these standards apply; variance procedures, and a maximum number of parkin,,, stalls set. at 4 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building sp a.cc; With regard to the maximum parking stall requirement, I think it is incumbent upon staff to reinforce that this will cause significant issue with many users considering locations i Lodi, In particular I am concerned about restaurant tenants that would typically loop for a higher parking requirement as a standard. I think it would be appropriate to continue the discussion regarding this ,standard during the public hearing. At the least, you may %Yvant to consider maximums by use, which could then be summarized for the entire prejec;t. Respectfully Subxnaitt-d, a Kom& Bartlam Community nity Development Director Atta.chmer,t February 10, 2004 16982 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Honorable- Chair and Members of the Planning Conunission C itv of Lodi 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95242 Re- Restrictions on Size of Retail Uses in the Proposed Large Scale Retail Design Guidelines Bear Honorable Chair and Members bers of the Planning Commissioners: On Wednesday February 11, 2004, the City of Lodi ("City" or `Lodi") Planning Commission will further consider proposed Design Standards for Large Scale Retail Establishments ("Design Standards"). The Planning Commission first considered the Design Standards at its January 28, 2003 meeting; at which time it decided further deliberation was needed and directed the Planning Department to review and, as needed, revise the proposed Design Standards. One of the revisions discussed was to include a size restriction on all future retaal pr(Icts. On behalf of our client, Wal-Mart Steges, Inc., we submit this letter to address the serious concerns raised by the proposed size restriction. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Comzunity Development Director's recommendation and urge the Planning Commission not to include a size restriction on retail developments in the Design Standards. A restriction can the size of retail uses, either as a ban or by requiring a use penilit, is a significant change from Lodi's existing land use policy. Lodi has engaged in an extensive and lengthy planning process to determine the appropriate location for large-scale retail within the community, In particular, Lodi has determined that large-scale retail is ars appropriate use in the Four C:o.r.ners area. Consistent with that prior planning decision., Lodi has already approved a Target and Lowe's in that area. wring this planning process, Dodi never considered a ban on, or requiring a conditional use pernut for, retail uses over a certain size. In fact, neither the General Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance includes any limitation on the size of retail use. To impose a restriction now on the, size of retail uses would be inconsistent with past planning efforts for the Four C'orriers area. In addition to being contrary to ,odi's history of planning, the proposed re,stric;timi on the sire of retail uses raises serious questions that must be considered and addressed before any such restriction is adopted, The City has not conducted, to our knowledge, f)ne EmWrcadero treater. Nth Floor, Sm Francisco, Ca{i#orma 94111-3719 e Phone: (4155) 788-0900 � Fax: (.415) 788-2019 San Francisca, CA Los Angeles, CA Starntord, CT www,steefaLcom PlanniTi-, Co r ission February ry , 204 Page Two any studies or analysis on the impact of such a restriction, Some of the key items the City must consider include the following: We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject any proposed size restriction on retail uses. Adopting a "barn" or requiring a conditional use permit on certain retail uses is not. the answer and does little more than limit the City's discretion with regard to future rases and negatively impact the economic retail base from Lodi, .However, if the Planning Commission desires to further consider this issue, it must separate this issue from the proposed Design Standards and conduct further study. The size limitation is not related to architectural design issues. The Planning Commission must conduct a complete and thorough analysis of the environmental, planning and economic impacts of the proposed restriction before faunally considering its adoptiot° A. Restricting the Size of Retail Uses Requires Review Under CEQA. Any restriction on the size of retail uses would require review under CEQA, CEQA applies to discretionary projects approved by public agmcieso See Public Meso Code sec. 21080(a), Changes to land use policy, including General dart and Zoning Ordinance amendments, are discretionary actions and deemed "projects" under CEQA. See id at 15378(a)(1). '`hey require CEQA review because they have a potential for resulting in either a direst physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the e vir rrmc rrte See Bozung v. ercaencs, Formation Cori mission, 13 Cal.3d. 263, 277- 279(1975). ii- 27 (197 ). Here, evi&=e exists to support an assertion that a restriction orr retailers of a certain size may cause a significant environmental impact, Past studies have shown that limiting Planning Commission February 10, 2044 Page Three retail >development to smaller users generates more traffic than associated with a. simple large- scale retail tenant since residents are forced to make several trips for their goods instead of one single trip. Residents also are Forced to travel further distances, outside the jurisdiction, to shop at the large-scale retailer, thereby exacerbating traffic and air quality impacts. Accordingly, restricting the size of retail uses may have significant environmental impacts which require full review and analysis under CEQA. B. Adopting a Size Restriction can Detail Uses is Inconsistent with Lodi's Planning Efforts, Requires Changes to the General Ilan and Zoning Ordinance, and Creates Unintended l nnin Impacts. Restricting the size of retail uses in Lodi could have several significant impacts on the City and existing large-scale retail users that have not been studied or analyzed. adopting such a provision without adequately considering all potential ramifications would be a mistake: and could violate CaliforDia law. The City has not prepared any steadies or evaluated the impact of banning or requiring a conditional use permit for large-scale retail stores over a certain square footage. e. absent this analysis, adopting such a maximum size restriction could be seem as arbitrary, capricious, wholly lacking in evidentiary support and easily subject to legal challenge. In particular, if it can be shown the provision is aimed at a particular project or retailer, it is sub ect to challenge on equal protection grounds, It is are abuse of discretion for the City to enact le isl'tation that is i€�tended to discriminate. See Friends of Davis v. Cit of Davis, 83 Cal.App.4`a' 1004, 1013 (2000). gxistin Large -Scale detail Stares Would l�eccame Non-Corafoz�xain Buil,C i—ty. Lodi presently has several large-scale retail stores over 100,000 square feet, iDcluding, but not limited to, Target, Lowe's (ander construction), K -Dart and Wal -mart. If a maximum size restriction were adopted, either a lean or a conditional use requirement, these storks would become nonconforming buildings under the Lodi Zoning Ordinance, which means their ability to repair, restore or make any additions or alterations to the buildings would be severely limited. The stores also would either be unable to expand or severely restricted from expanding, thereby significantly impairing their ability to conduct business within the City limits. Furthermore, since the Lowe's is not yet constructed, it is unclear how this change in zoning regulation would affect its existing entitlement. As a result, when the existing large-scale retail stores outgrow their cuiTent buildings, seep to update, modernize or expand their operations, they will be forced to locate outside th(,- City limits, The City will then be left with large empty non-conformiDg buildings that will be difficult, if not impossible to re -tenant. The City also will lose a significant source of tax revenue and is likely to see an increase in sales tax leakage as consumers talo: their dollars and spend them- at retail establishments outside the City. Planning Commission February 10, 2004 Page Four 2 General plata and. csnznz, Ordinance mendments are deeded to Restrict the Size of etail Uses in Lodi. The General Platy and Zoning Ordinance dictate development within the City. They are adopted as legislative acts and regulate the size, scale and intensity of development. In fact, the General Plan is essentially the fr6constitution" of band use identifying the building density and intensity recommended for the various districts. See Cal. Govt Code sec. 65M2(a). These density's and intensity's cannot be changed without a formal amendment to the General Placa. See also Lesher Communications Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531., 540-541 {1990). Imposing a maximum size restriction of retail uses, either by ban or by conditional use permit requirements, would be a restriction on the intensity of land use in the commercial areas of Lo& It is not, like the changes proposed gander the Design Standard, me-reit/ a clarification of the general policies included in the General Plan and ming Ordinance regarding design, landscaping, parkin;, etc. It is a change in land use policy that, if adopted, would create inconsistencies with the General Flan and Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, any such restriction can only be adopted as an amendment to the General flan and Zoning Ordinance .- it cannot be adopted as part of the Design Standards. A SiKe -Restriction on Retail Uses Contradicts midi's Over 9 Fears of Flani1j for Lare-Seale .et l Pr ts. Lodi is a very forward thinking city and began over 9 years ago planning for large-scale retail projects. Lodi undertook a planning process to evaluate the impact of large- scale retail projects and determine where in the City these types of projects should be located, Based on the findings, Lodi determined that large-scale retail pro 'Jects should be located in the Dour Corners area, Consistent with that planningeffort, three of the four intersections in the Four Corners area have been developed with large-scale retail projects such as Target, -Dart, Lowe's andWal-Mart. Development of the last corner, as proposed by the Browman Development Company, Inco (" rowrnan development"), a lora-time Lodi property owner and developer, is consistent with the planning for this area. Any proposed restriction on the size of retail uses would contradict and be inconsistent with the City's long-range planning efforts. Chian in fire rules this late in the gauze also is fundamentally unfair to property owners and developers who, in good faith, have been processing applications for large-scale retail with the City over the past several years. Adopting a maximum size restriction can retail development will severely limit the City's discretion with regard to future development. Size limitations or bans on certain types of' development are not good planning tools. They are not flexible and prevent good land use and city planning. Other tools exist besides limitations and Marrs to address the impacts created by the large-scale retailers. Instead of restricting these eases, the City should consider how to manage and/or minimize their impacts and erasure they contribute, not detract from, the community character of Lodi. 11 Planning Commission February 10, 2064 Page Five v imposing a maximum size limitation on retail building within Lodi will have significant negative econon& impacts on the City that meed to be analyzed and considered, Most importantly, the size restriction will prevent large-scale retail users from locating within the City. This, in tura, will likely preclude other smaller retailers from locating in Lodi, since these smaller businesses rely on the traffic generated by the large -scab retailer for a significant amount of their business and can only locate in areas, or rihoppjng graters, with those larger retailers. These retailers are likely to locate just outside of Lodi's jurisdiction in cities and counties where they are permitted and where it is easier to develop. When this occurs, Lodi will lose the significant tax _revenue generated by large-scale retailers and the contributions they make to various public works improvements and special projects. Lodi also will likely see a decrease in tax revenue from an increase in retail sales leafage as consumers tale their money and spend it on re -tail outside the City, Lodi is already experiencing significant retail sales leakage to other jurisdictions, Dodi also should be concerned about losing existing large-scale retailers. If Lodi adopts a maximum size limit for retail buildings or complicated design guidelines, when these large-scale retailers decide to relocate, or need to expand, they will leave Lodi. These relocations and expansions may not occur for several years, but they will occur and by passing a ban or onerous restrictions on development Lodi will essentially be driving therm from the City. c,cordimgly, before adopting a baro or complicated design guidelines, Lodi should carefully consider their economic and fiscal impacts. For the reasons stated above, we strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject anv atterrapt to impose a maximum building size limitation on retail stores. Sincerely, -Judy V. Davidoff cc: Konrad Bartlam, Community Development Director City Attorney Darryl Browman, BTowman Development 16982:6377225.4 SAN -20-04 21-10 FRU-BROWMAN O V LOWNT U V04800761 T-002 P.02f00 F -6i4 BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. De—lopm�nt s Lc35;:ng WInagemc-111 piffluling. comulissioa City of L.odi 1 ', Pine Street Lodi, CA 95242 Dear fission 4AN-2 0 -64 2 1, d § FROM -SRO W N/32 g CO 6104309761 T-082 P.08/09 F -IRU TeiendsidhVdrqurme=heDntmrs abased on my expefience in developing retail shopping centers, are oncrous ©2 could potentially drive retailm away from Lodi Wr as follows : Most reWlers require a minimum five (50) parking spues per 1,000 squm feet of ret4i] use. Because p4rking is so c6fic2l to The success of retwil cstablishn=ts, Ihis provision will threaten theviabty of remiler as well m exacerbate environmcntul impacts by ricqung customers to spend more time in their vehicles searching for parking spaces. Requiring that no more than 50perceut of the off-street parking: area forthe lot devoted to the large retaU establishment be located In front of the retail Cstablighmeut; Market >©setwh shows ®« customers want to park in fiont of the retail estaWahment. Bven wh= paxl6ug is providod on the sides or rear of a b0dim cuswmea © park ia the front and will circle the parking lot exacerbating the enAronmenW nnpacu, looking for :<» space instead of parlang on the side or rear. Requiring additional stores located within a priucipal buil4ing have at leat one extexier customer entroace; lF, lillll!i : :111 111 <rx12 Imp eTliwa -2- JAN -28-04 2WO FROM-BEVELOPk T CQ 510430 1 1 T-082 P-04/0 F -E74 0 Sidgwalks, no IM than 8 feet in Wititb, sh4u be provided alang the fu" length of the buflft& 4104# any faqadip featuriag a customer entrance, and Wong Any feet from the fagade to accommodate planting beds for foundation landscapingland, minimum ot e"eu berm is requiredYresidential provideLn cases where ft parkms lot is a4lacent to midental uses, a more pTactie approach wotdd bv to ..* -tea-foot planter with trees to provide r` =eening wdnoise mifigation Zoning Each of these reqairements and the spwific problems they pose for mWl establishmenu ecific discass.ion of how thew reqahMents are, ovare not workins, in Ft Collins is 41so .gid Other provisions it the Design Sn_ dd pose prablms depending on their interpretation et s 16982;6375144 3 -3- JAN -20-04 211,,19 FROM-BPOWMAN DEVELOPMENT CO 51043097EI T-082 PA/09 F474 1. MaxiMUM .o' #r (4.0) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail use. I No «x® thaa My (50) percent of the off-street parking area for the %:«© v<7 to :£-«< retail nablishment shall be located between the front facade of the large retail establisbment and the abutftS streets. ; 6942-6#g#$ -4- JAN -28-04 21 :20 ROM-BROWMAN DEMOMNT CO 5104309761 9082 PAG/09 F-674 3. Wbere addifioual starts wiH be located in the principal buOdingi, eneb such store sb*U baye at least one exterior customer entrance, which ahaO conform to thip above requiremews. i6992-6375144,3 -5- JAN -29-04 21.20 FROWPOWMAN RVELORENT CO 5104809761 T-082 P.07/06 P-674 these smaller rewil uses is not feasible given the small size of the retail uses, their close - - I -&� '4k gg-;L -,A M gat" fi- Afi"i Ne--'.'� , "." '.' "i'l I'mit The following provisions of the Design Swadards are workable provided that they interpreied. in a reasonable manner, as discussed below. (a) "ore thefaCade res adjacew residentiai uses, an earthen be"n, nP less than 6feer A i . n height, containing at a minimum eveWeen trees planted of intervals of20feer on center, or in cluster or clumps shall be provided. To coustruct A 6 foot high eartben berm requires a minimum 35 foot serback, This luge setbAck will impose significaut restrictions the availaTy of remil developmeats to accoa=o4w the necmuy buildings, patting �wd other 4npraveweats on a siagle site. Accordingly, Lodi should clarify that the purpose of ua4844 2191 FROM-oRWMa 342@4@ CO 51409761 D082 EG§nZ§ r774 oading dacb, m:<y«»«_outdoor « »%e>d»y»«:» «,«<.j:7mew trash colleczion andcompae ,« c:«eyd contained an aus of Wewfrom ....z.a<a.» .. - . .. ,,: properly. Accordingly, ® wwa. .,..a«4>2»<<�:,c enclosing the area but raftr adequatelyscreening ».3from view adjacent Mon -enclosed are..,storage and saleof «>w«:z.« «<.halbepermanently MOM lfwsz63751",3 — DESiGN STANDARDS: Specific Recornmendations for Modifications: I j 17,58,032(b): Ground floor facades that face the public streets shall have arcades, display windows, entry areas awnings no less than 60% of their length, in most cases commerclai buildings face will face at least two (2) public streets. _ �. Lation-1 Ciarify that there shall be no requirement for buildings less than 45,000 square feet to provide entrances and display windows on more than one side of building; otherwise tenants cannot merchandise and operate their store, 2) 17-58,082 provides where additional stores will be located in the principal building, each store shall have at least one entrance and 3 separate architectural features at its entrance. �g_q_qgstion: 17.58,042 seems to address the intent without placing unreasonable operational burdens on the tenants by providing that "separately owned stores in the principal building with separate entrances need display windows 60% of horizontal frontage. 17,58.082 should be deleted otherwise separate departments, license arrangements kiosks fall under this separate entrance requirement 3) 17.58.082(b): Additional stores required to utilize a minimum of 3 prominent architectural features. In small multi -tenant buildings it may be impractical to apply this condition to each tenant's space. �estjon: Clarify guidelines so in single tenant pad buildings and/or multi -tenant buildings the 3 prominent features guideline shall apply to the entire building as a whole not each tenant in a multi -tenant building, 4) 17.58A 12 requires no more than 50% of the off street parking devoted to the large scale retail establishment be located in front parking lot. Additionally 17MA12(c) requ.1res including any pad site parking within this 0%, jag&q Su stion: Delete the requirements that no more than 50% of the parking can be _ located in the front lot and that on out parcels parking would be included in this limitation, Provide flexibility for staff and the Planning Commission to address the issue through site plan design, screening and balancing of the site, and projects interests such as the project's long- term viability, 5) 17.58.112(c) requires a maximum of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space for large scale retail. Suggestion,- Amend provision to provide maximum of 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of retail space for large retailers and ancillary retailers and 10-12 stalls per 1,000 square feet of restaurant uses, I of 2 6) 17.58-122(b) requires providing a six-foot (W) high earthen berm where any budding fagade faces residential. �usiion: In Gases where the parking lot is adjacent to residential, provide a masonry ggt— screen wail and ten -foot (10) landscape planter with trees to provide better screening and noise M400fon as set out in the present Lodi Zoning Ordinance. 7) 17.58.132(c) provides that loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage, utility meters HVAC equipment, trash collection and compaction should be fully contained and out of view. 5 1 Lj�s-fiogn: Fully containing the areas listed in this section may be impractical will not allow them to function correctly. Clarify that "fully containing" does not mean enclosing the areas, but rather adequately screening them from view and for purposes of noise mitigation. 8) 17.58,142(c). Sidewalks, no less than 8 feet in width shall be provided along entire length of building fagade featuring a customer entrance and along any fagade abutting public parking areas, such sidewalks shall be located at least 16 feet from facades to accommodate planting beds. yggescion: Eliminate the requirement to place landscaping adjacent to building foundation as it may be impractical and is contrary to geotechnical engineering standards and practices "cause differential settlementiseismic issues) provide staff, SPARC and/or the Planning Commission with discretion to add landscaping planters in areas they deem appropriate and practical. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1) There is some confusion about when and if the standard applies only to larger 45,000 square foot retailers and/or when they apply to other smaller buildings in the shopping center such as out parcel tenants. Suggestiqn: T o eliminate confusion, clarify definition of a principal building as one that contains 45.,000 square feet of GLA or more, 2) Variance Standard: Under California law variance requires a finding of hardship, �jug_qestion: Modify Ordinance consistent with the Fort Collins Ordinance to provide staff and/or Planning Commission with the right (without requirement or legal burden of variance) to modify standard if it determines', (1) strict application of the standard results in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship or (2) alternate site plan and design approach meets design objectives and goals of City equally well or better. Under the Design guidelines the modifications can only occur through the variance -process which may be burdensome to administer and not facilitate the goals and objectives of the Design Standard. of 2 agggestiow Modify Ordinance consistent with the Fort Collins Ordinance to provide staff and/or Planning Commission with the right (without requirement or legal burden of variance) to modify standard if it determines: (1) strict application of the standard results in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship or (2) alternate site plan and design approach meets design objectives and goals of City equally well or better. Under the Design guidelines the modifications can only occur through the variance process which may be burdensome to administer and not facilitate the goals and objectives of the Design Standard. 3 of 2 112M004 t:21 PM BnQb _W. m Barnes & Noble Comt Plus 5 Borders, lnc. Lamps Plus q Tw er Books 5 pier 1 Imports l al€ re zs Le r z a � Cea�t rs Pottery Barn ii7 Babies R Us Restoration Hardw=are Disney Store Willi= Sonoma 5.5 Kids R Us Z Gallew-ie 3 s 5 24 Hour Fitness Gerttsctaallts tally's Total Fitness 3.7 Kol Ps HfiM9INWUv== Sears 5.17 %lomt,Depot 5 lied Bath & Beyond 5 Alberesons 7,5 Mchaels arts & Crafts 5 Fleming Companies 5 Strouds Haley's Dam—a9w 5 Ralphs--lead 4 Less 5 Longs Dr€ r Stare 5 Safeway 5,5 .Rite Aid iA Trader joe's 5,5 walgreens PALS= kmn&c p tsX�nes petco 6 lam: Buy S Petsmarl 5:5 Circuit Cavy 5 Camp USA 5 Btar"gTorn Coat Factory 5 Pry's Electrollics Fashion Bug 5 Good Gays 5 Crag Men's Warehouse 0 Applebee's 5 Old Navy 9.33 Chili's 5 Ross Dress for less Claim jumper ,{tom' wg a� i5 Teel Taco Copeland's Sports 15 Elepharir, Bar 5 R.E.I II Fornaica 5 Sportntart/Garr Sports 9 1n N Out Barger ,jamba,juice 5.25 Costco ohtrny Carina 5 Sam's Club 10 Johnny Rackets Krispy Krerne Doughnuts Macaroni Grill 15 i imi's Caf6 18 Clave Garden On the Border panes PF Changs China Bistro 13 Pizzo Hut 19 Red Lobster Red Robin 11 Round Fable Pizza. Rulaio's Tula Grill 5tpxbucics Coffee Com- parry 1.8 TGT ridgy$ 10 Taco Bell 112M004 t:21 PM In CLC AEiSUCIATES January 26, 2004 Mr. Rick Chavez Doucet & Associates 0 Dougias Boulevard, Suite 475 Roseville, CA 95661 RE, Fort Collins, Colorado Design Guidelines for Large Detail Establishments Dear Mr, Chavez: CLC Associates, Inc. has been involved since 1995 as the Land Planners, Civil Engineers. Design r hit ct and Landscape Architects on a project called Mulberry and der ay Crossings iodated in Fort Collins, Colorado, This is a 4 -acre master planned retail and residential development whose initial phase was a 10 acre apartment complex that provides affordable housing opportunities to the citizens of Fort Collins, The second phase was a Wal-Mart Super- center. up r - c nt r. The balance of the center is now built and/or in the process of approval and includes a Home Depot, KFC restaurant, and cluster of small retail shops. Mulberry and Lemay Crossings was the second large retail development in Fort Collins to be held to the criteria outlined in the ii °tabu hrst nt which were adopted by the City of Fart Collins in January, 1995. This site meets the criteria but it was not without extensive discussions with the staff on their interpretation ref the yid lines, Our initial meetings with the City of Fort Collins were in March of 1995; shortly after the adoption of the guidelines. The planning process was a lengthy process involving annexation by the City, the approval — via public ballet -cif an Overall Deveicspr ent Plan (Master Plan) for the entire site, and the approval of the Site Development Plan for Wal -Bart's lot by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council_ Th annexation process was rather quick game year), since the property is bounded on 3 sides by the City, The balance of the time was spent with the City in the planning of an overall site plan, as well as, a specific Wal-Mart site plan that ;net the various aspects of the r gidelines. The apartments were opened in 1999. The Wal-Mart was opened was opened in the fall of 2001, We can now look back at this stare and site and see ghat elements of the _uicielines have worked and which requirements haven't worked. The one that has caused the greatest deal of frustration to the "pedestrian" and "vehicular" customer is the requirement for the distribution of parking around the store. The store is one of two in the City and draws customers from the north end of the City, the surrounding county and neighboring state of Wyoming. It is a very busy store, The site has access paints to the iiarking I€ate from the three surrounding streets. Yet every customer seems to want to pack in front of the bui(ding, every though some of the spaces on the sides of the building are Maser to the building's entries. By having no more than .'_lS0 F..0 _;; 0 RCHrF20 K`C1,A^ - �FUITE �'U0>' • 5RE F_N W0 C)O V1i_.L.AGE • C0 !SCJ°Zt . F 303 -110 � & 0 n e F _343: `7e7Cx;3-t'-] W Rick Chavez January 26, 2004 Page 50% of the total parking in front of the building this causes traffic congestion in front of a stare Aich weir planned to be "pedestrian frigidly", Even though the parking lot was designed: to accommodate parking r do of 5 spaces/1,000 square feet of building area,. customers still Brad up parking across the street on the dirt portions of the development, its your discussions with the City of Lodi, I would encourage there to reconsider the requirements ` of no more than 50% of the total parking being located between the front of the building and the adjacent street and limiting the parking ratio to 4 spaces i1,000 sq. ft. The congestion and confusion, which are a result of this requirement, have been caused in front of the Fort oIlin's Wal-Mart storey surra contrary to the goals of a pedestrian "friendly' and safe retail site. WEDNESDAY Januaij, 28, 2004 7;00 P.M... The Planning Commission met alid was called to order by Chain-nan Mattheis. Commissioners PrOSCDt: Eddie Aguirre, Dennis flau ;an., Randall Hoinitz, Gina Moran, David ROLL CALL Phillips, Dennis ` bite, and Chairman 1v attheis Commissioners Absent: Norge Others Prosent: Konradt Barth, C o€ rnn ity Development fir°ector, bark Meissner, Associate Planner, and Usaivagner, Secretary. PUBLICHEARINGS Cominiss over White arrived at 7:07 pmi� The request of Richard Gata tine for the Planning Commission's recomme datio .of the approval to the City Council foran. Annexation. and Prezoning for 59.5.2 east Piece Street. Co inanity Development Director Partlam prese ted the item to the Commission, The property had a City General Plan designation of 11-1, Heavy Industrial and a Cokanty zoning of Imp., Limited d Industrial. 'T'he request was to Prezone the property to Mm2, Heavy Industrial to make it consistent with the General Plan designation. The subject property was a I0 -acre parcel located just east of the Lodi Memorial Cemetery. The request for annexation would be going through the MAPCO process once it is approved by the City Council. When the property is developed it will be an infill pr€.ject surrounded by other industrial uses. Staff was;recommending approval of the requests. Commissioner Ho.initz asked if the cemetery would remain in the County? Mr. l artlarn replied that it would remain in the County since they were reluctant to be annexed into the city, Hearing Opened.to the Pubic No one carte forward to speak on the matter. Hearing Closed to the Public The Plant'ling Commission on.motion otion of Commissioner Heinitz, augan second voted to approve the request of Richard Galantine and to recommend approval to the City Council for the Annexation and Prozoning for 5952 last pine Street by the following vote: AYES: Cores iss onerso Aguirre, Hatt an, Heinitz., Moran, Phillips, White and Chairman Mattheis N0U, So Commissioners: ABSENIT, Commissioners, ABs,rAI : Commissioners i-28 The request o. `Jeffrey Kirst for approval of a vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Alm.ond North., a 28 -lot single-family residential subdivision t 265 East Alr .ond.Drive. associate .Planner . cissncr presented the item to the Commission. `file project area included two separate properties encompassing nearly 5- acres of land. When the project develops, there would be six comer lots with duplexes built upon them, The Devc1opmont Plan for this project was reviewed and approved earlier and granted 34 low-density units. Bach lot will be at least 5,000 square feet in size. The to-affic c.ir&atzon patten) for ilie project would connect this subdivision to CSX stul streets in the area., Staff found the project to be suitable for the site wrd further noted that the Pr iect would be surrounded by other developments now underway in the arca. Staff was recoanmending approval ofthe request with the correction that condition #l2 and condition #25b from resolution be removed, Coat missioncr l claitz € uestioned. staff on wall locations along Almond Drive. Staff responded. that the project would not have a wall. since there was front doer access on to almond Drive. Hearing;Opened to Public Daren Bowen, 1641 law nhaven Way, Lodi, Ms. Bowen asked if there were any plans to extend Ravenwood. May. mien she bought her property she was told that Ravenwood Waywould not be a through street. She also had a resolution. in hand that read a. portion of Ravenwood Way was to be vacated. She was conceincd about her homew s value with the increased traffic from thy: project. Mr. l artlarn replied that there had been a COL111 case with the fon-fler owner ofthe property regarding how this project would connect to his property, The portion. of° Ravenwood Way that was to vacated ww,as at th, request of ]fir. RAI. the former property owner. Mr, $artlam invited ber to stop by (pity flail to discuss the inatter further, Hearing. to Public The Planning Commission on motion. of Commissioner Heinitz, Hau an second voted to approve by the request of Jeffrey first fbr approval of a vesting Tentative Subdivision leap for almond North, a 28 -lot single-family residential subdivision at 265 East almond Drive by the fallowing vote, AYES: Commissioners: Aguirre, Ha an, Heinitz, Morava, Phillips, Waite and Chainnan Matt eis NOES; Commissioners: ABSENT. Commissioners, ABSTAINommissio ers The request of R. Thomas Develop t, Inc. for approval of a. Vesting Tentative Subdivision l for Millsbridge 11, a Zfilot single-family re0dentialsubdivision at 1723 West.Kettleman Lane, associate Planner Meissner presented the item to the Commission, The subject property was 4 '/4 acres in size and torted for residential use. When developed, the corner lets would have duplexes built upon them. The project was reviewed and approved for 28 building allocations in 2003. Each lot would be around 5,800 square feet, the streets will have a tree -lined parkways and sidewalks. Staff was recommending approval of the project with the exception that condition #12 be removed d from the Resolution. a-2s.doc Hearing:. Opened to Public No one care forward to speak. Hearing Closed to Public The Plaruiing Commission on notion of Commissioner Haugan, Heinitz, second, voted to approve by the request of R, Thomas Development, Inc. for. approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision leap for Millsbr€dge 11, a 7 -lot single-family residential subdivision, n, at 1723 Fest Kattleman Lanae by the following vote: AYES; Commission us, Aguirre, Haugan, Heinitz, Moran, Phillips, White and C in an Mattheis DOES, Commissioners: ABSENT: Comm issioners, ABSTAIN: Commissioners Zoning Ordinance Amendment a in Chapter 17.58 regarding Design Standar € s for merge Retail Establishments. Chairman M ttheis started out the. Public Haring by saying the design standards being reviewed world dompliment the small town atmosphere within Lodi. The standards would mitigate visual impacts and sct design standards for future developments. ents. Ike announced that the focus of the public hearing was to review proposed design standards for large retail establishments. If anyone had comments about specific: Projects or panels, they would. have to gait uii6l the Public Comments portion of the agenda. 1.r, l artl:aM gene. an overview of the ordinance. He stated that once the standards were approved by the Commission, then a recommendation would be made to the City Council to adopt the standards, The set of standards deals with, architectural details as well as site devcloprnent:. Some of the details may rake or break a project it will also have an impact on. smaller buildings that may take place in a larger center. It world address several design issues and the purpose of this ordirxance was to make bigger buildings more visually pleasing and palatable to the public. The requirements for roofing material, parapets were spelled out in detail in the document. It attempts to give guidance on how a building's entry way, rear, sides, and back. of building will look, The project site would receive attention via location of parking scabs in terms of quantity and how they are distributed amongst the rest of the center. ft will deal with the number of parking stalls both as a minimum and. a maximum count, It will deal with location and treatment of outdoor storage, trash, and loading areas for both visual and noise redaction. It will deal. with pedestrian flaws in terms of being able to being people from both public streets to the buildings. The standards require community unity spaces, such as a plaza or water features, These features tend to humanize a project site. For the pest 30 years the city has had an. architectural review-, committee that deals with design related issues. The standards would help the committee to have more "teeth" with dealing with the design of a'building, The set of standards were specific to projects that have a building size of more than 45,000 square feet. Cin-, of the most significant design i.ssires was the distribution of parking, The new standards: were requiring that no more than 50% of the total parking on the site must be I-29.doc in front of the major tenant, The second significant standard was placing a maximum parking ourit (4 spaces per 1,040 sq. ft) on a project. Hearing Opened to the Public Barbara Flockhart, 331 La Setta Drive, Lodi. Ms. Flockhart was concerned about the ability for her RV to move around a parking lot, She did not want any islands with trees located in parking lots. June Gifford, 519 W, Locust Street, Lodi. Ms. Gifford was in support of the guidelines and telt the commission had done a wonderful job downtown. She was in favor of putting a.lirnitation on the square -footage of a building, Barbara Krengel. 915 W, Locust Street, Lodi, Ms. Krengel echoed. Ms. Gi fford's Statemet ts. Kathy `rant, 84.1 Cardinal Street, Lodz. Ms. Grant stated she Liked what the Commission had been. doing. She suggested a 25,€ 00 square: foot building verses the recommended 45,000 square -foot threshold. She suggested adding a category to Ndestri n flows to include bicycles, She warted to see a. pedestrian walkway as well acrd not: just beeches and walkways. Ann Corney, 900 W, Vine Street, Lodi, Ms, Cerney was present to represent herself and Citizens for Open Government, She supported the document; however, she felt the parking should be 3 parkikig stalls rather than 4 parking stalls per 1,060 square feet, a 25,040 sq, fl, threshold and a maximum of no more than 100,€ 00 sq. ft, Her group was prepared to support square footage limitations even if it needed to be done by initiative. Robin Knowhon, 410 W. Oak Street, Lodi, Ms. Knowlton had spoken with staff from the City of Fort Collins and voted that they had placed a 6 -month moratorium on any new buildings until the guidelines were in place. Any new retailers larger than 25,000 square feet should have to follow the guidelines. In addition., size was in favor of a square footage Iii-nitation, Bob Padden, 196090 Olive Street, Woodbridge, Mr, Padden liked the 25,000 square foot z ini'murri and felt there should also be a maximum. He suggested that every shopping center should be located at a signalized intersection. Mike Higgins, 130 S. Ham Lane, Lodi, Mr, Higgins was in support for a maximum square footage of'up to 125,000 square feet. He supported the proposed parking ratio and noted that by spreading the parkin; around the building it would be good for traffic circulation, He also wanted to see more bicycle and pedestrian lanes within the centers. George Fink, 1529 Edgewood give, Lodi. Mr, Fink stated that the design standards were long overdue, .fl.e supported placing buildings more in the front of a property rather than in beck, He also liked the idea of the, Art in Public places requirement. Laddie Erbele, 720 Cypress Run, Woodbridge, Ms, Erbele was present to represent herself and the Delta Sierra. Club Mother bode Chapter, She was in favor of putting a 100,000 sq. fl maximum on. any new buildings and also was in favor of the 25,004 square footage minis um. before the design standards would be applied. Daryl. Brownian, 100 Swan Way, Suite 206, Oakland. Mr. Brown an has been a property towner for 10 years in Lodi and owns a retail development company. He stated that his focus was can the long-term viability of his projects. He was in support t-28,doc 4 of design standards and had been doing more pedestrian-friendly projects, He suggested a study session to see just how the design standards would apply to new incoming projects. He felt the suggested parking standards would deter restaurants from corning to Lodi. He shared that retailers usually relocate their business because of a lack ofparking, In regards to 50% parking being located in. the front of the stare, he stated tbat. parking must be convenient for and that is why all main entries to a stare are located in the front of the building. Although Fort Collins had parking in the front and hack of their stare, -when both of those lots were full, customers started parking in dirt areas around store. fie stated that multiple entrances to a stare would create more problems with security, He suggested that instead of using a 6-foot berm for screening, that a landscaped screen or wall would be better. Jim Watt, Vice President of Real Estate for Save hart Supermarkets, Mr. Matt felt retailers would make concessions when they wanted a site. He preferred the standard of 5 cars per 1,000 square feet. He had seen other stores make concessions with pafking and noted that lie had also seen projects where parking was wrapped around the whale stare. John Donovan, 425 W, Locust Streot, Lodi. Mr, Donovan was concerned about the air quality. He, noted that when trees are planted they absorb pollution, shade area, and intercept rainfall, He supported a 1.00,000 square foot maximum and suggested parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. He felt that the parking lets needed bigger planters, and bigger trees. He asked the Commission to not rush through the guidelines. Hearffig Closed to the Public Chairman Mattheis noted for the record that prior to the meeting he. had spoken with several citizens, .Darryl Brownian, and representatives from Save Mart Foods, He suggested tht� following changes to the document, Section 17.58,020 -reduced. from 45,000 to 25,€300 sq. ft, Section 17.59.1 12- (a) -M ed d more additional language for clarification purposed. Section 17.58.112- (c)C hairrtaan Matth is suggested removing secon. d sentence and replacing it with "the maximum number of off street parking spaces shall not exceed the following. Retail 4 spaces for every 1,000 sq, ft)Restaurants 15 spaces for every 1,000 sq. ft./Fitness & health clubs 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. In addition he suggested language to read "fear phased developments parking areas shall only be constructed when the adjoining building for which the parking is required is built.49 This suggesting was an increase; for the overall parking of the site, but more specifically related to the building pads within the center. (c) add condition that if additional parking stalls were requested, they maybe allowed when developed in a multi-level structure with Planning CommissioD approval. Section 17.58.122 -(b) -did not see the need for a 6 -foot berm that backs up to a residential area. He suggested that it be placed on public streets only. Section 17,58.142(c) -landscaping around building- He appreciated the need for additional landscaping around building and suggested having 1-2S.doc landscaping between sidewalk and road, Section 17.58 042 (a) -delete the word "be" Section 17,59 Imdelete First comma in sentence. Section 17,58,0 2Tstrike 4-5, in place of #3 rock or native stone Section 17,58.142 -add and (f) to add a bike and pedestrian circulation section to the standard Section IT58.132-enclosures-should be visually and acoustically screened. Chaiima . Mattheis stated that he was aot in favor of establishing a maximum square footage sire, He preferred to leave the item as it was presented in the document. Ann Cerney interrupted Chairman Mattheis and carne forward. to complain that the Commission was not following the Due Process and Notice Procedure. Chairman Mattheis asked r. l artlam for direction on Ms, Cerney's complaint, Mr. 1 artlaxn replied that he had not seen anything that was out of order. The Chairman did disclose that he had meetings with certain people prior to the meeting, which was customary and a courtesy, but not necessarily required. Beyond that, the meeting was noticed as a public hearing regarding the design standards and nothing else. The Commission had every right to bring up additional items that were not in staff s recommendation as long as they are in purview of the design standards. Hearing rew-paved to the Pubtle Ann Cer ey, 900 W, Vine ,Street:, Lodi, Ms. C'emey felt the specific issue that she wanted the people attending themeeting to address was the issue of parking. She felt that the presented parking standard for retail of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq, ft, should be a flat number for an. entire development with a large retailer and that the parking should be distributed throughout the site. She felt that what was presented was a differention depending on what businesses were being served. She felt the recommended changes would reward one particular patty that addressed the Commission, NIT, Bartlam pointed out that in. his memorandum to the Commission, he was the one who raised the issue of looking at restaurants with an additional parking standard and it had nothing to :do with discussions with developers or otherwise, but one ofcontinuing the conversation about what maximurns aught to exist, It was most customary in planning standards to have parking calculated by use and not by site. Commissioner Hc�.initz responded that the Commission. was present to tist=- to everyone and their input Commissioner Haugan. suggested a need to have a sliding scale for parking. John Donovan, 425 Wo Walnut Street, Lodi. fie mentioned that the one thing that always teras overlooked was public transportation to a site. He felt the suggested restaurant parking requirement (1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. f1.) was just to foal people, Rearing to ec ter the Public The Commission took a 5 -minute break 1-28,doc Commissioner Mattheis carne back with the following changes: 1) That the r inimum square footage of a building be 25,000 square feet before the standards apply. 2) Detail Parking 4 s aces.per 1,000 sq, ft,; Restaurants 15 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., and 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for health clubs. 3) That the wording; be simplified in section 58.112. 4) That 50 percent of the parking to be placed in front of building 5) That the berm suggested be applied to public streets. 6) That a standard for bike parking and safe pedestrian walkway be set. In regards to a maximurn square footage, Commissioner M ttheis felt that the square footage was more of a control mechanism that should be addressed in how the cominission proceeds with the ordinance. Commissioner Phillips suggested that if a. building is goi.ng to be over 100,000 square feet, then a Use Permit process should be applied. Commissioners t attheis, Heinitz, and `white felt that there should not be a ,square footage maximum set. Commissioner leinitz warted to see a pedestrian walkway from the street to the business e mould like to sec the walkways more visible, safe and with traffic Calming Measures. In regards to the lighting in parking areas, Mr. Bartlarn noted the higher the pole the less light; the lover the light, the more light pales needed. Commissioner Mattheis suggested a 25400t height. standard. He fi.irther suggested low-level lighting along pedestrian walkways. . In regards to the tree & landscaping standards. The current standards allow i tree to every 4 parking spaces. Commissioner Mattheis felt the issue of growth and mainte,nance should be addressed. In regards to outdoor storage, Mr. Bartlam shared that there was nothing in the code, yet. It was suggested that any space used for outdoor storage would be calculated as parking spaces, C:c minunity Development Director Bartlani stated that the various modifications suggested be the Commission would be made to the document and be brought back before the Commission for action at their next z eeting. The item would not be an advertised pudic hearing, since the public hearing had already been. closed. It would appear as a "Planning Matter" cera the next agenda. The Planning Commission felt that the item should be remadvertised for the .next meeting as a public hearing. € mments by the Public Robin Knowlton, 410 W. Oak Street, Dodi. Ms. Knowlton felt the public should have more input on the square footage issue. She recommended that the document being proposed be dolt into two documents, so that; the square footage could. be discussed further. She further stated that big stares create more, impacts than just economical. impacts, Co aha ssioner Heintz felt the Council should handle the matter, Ann Cert cy, 900 W. Vine Street, Lodi. Ids, Ceraaey was concerned that the public had. 1-2&doc been cert out and she urged that the public heariaig be continued, If the poople of Lodi do not want a Super Wal. -Mart, the people make the design guidelines, not the Commission. Christina Cross, J896 W. "burner Road, Ms, Cross suggested shuttles around Christmas irne. She felt that until the community had a chargee to come together, then the matter should not ;o any further. Tammy Evans, 46 Malley Oak Placc, Lodi. Ms, Evans stated that not everyone was against Wal-Mart and she thanked the Comr.russion for all their efforts. Dori Ricci, 2711 Bristol., Lodi. Mr, Ricci felt the standards were tong overdue and noted a majority of the guidelines were aimed at a certain business. He suggested a parking structure rather than a parking lot. Ar y Shepherd, 509 W. Tunier Road, Lodi. Ms. Shepherd liked the small town atmosphere in Lo& A large retail store would have an impact on all people who live in Lodi, , Judy Davidoff, Ms. Davidoff was present to represent Wal-Mart. She felt that targeting a certain retailer was riot appropriate, The design guidelines were a great plan; however, limiting the size was not appropriate. Commissioner Heinitz stated that the.meeting was not a "Wal-Mart forurn." It was to address tsi standards only, Darryl Browman, 1.00 Swan Way, Suite 206, Oakland, Mr, Brownian felt the design standard would ultimately produce a great prc�jeeta if a square footage maximum had been in paced previously, thea Lodi world riot have a Target or Lowe's stores. He asked the Commission to let the size limitations be a political decision. Mike Fol ner, 46. Valley Oak Place, Lodi, lire Polkner is the rnarta.ger for the Lodi. Wal -Mat store. He felt the pending question was `show big should a big box be?" People say that y the )current store is torn small, and they ask him. `when. is the new Superstore coming?" g?" Susan Hitchcock, 2443 MacArthur Pad"°ay, Dodi. Ms. Hitchcock stated that planning is the best use of the laird, not just numbers arid dollars. She suggested that the Commission wrestle with it and then forward it on to the Council. She suggested using a conditional use permit process. Public Comtnent Closed. It was decided that the Design Standards would be re -noticed and there would be a public hearing on the item at the next meeting. ADJOURNNIENT As there was no further business to be brought before the Planning Commission, Chain-nan i0 attheis adjour cd the session at 1 1.45 p.m, Re cotlzlly submitted, sa ager ceretary 1 28,doc WEDNF,SDAY February tt, 2004 7:00 PMS The Plan ing Commission inet and was called to order by Chairman Mattheis. Commissioners Present: Eddie, Ag irre, Dennis Haugan, Randall Heinitz, Gina Moran, David ROLL CALL Phillips, Dennis White, and Chairman Mattheis Commissioners Absent, None C tlaers Pr s€t° Konradt Ba;rtl.am, Cotxttatuaity Devetopment Director, Mark. Meissner, Associate Planner, Lisa Wagner, Socretary, and D. Stephen Schwal quer, Interin) City Attorney PUBLIC HEARINGS C€airamissioner Philips made a motion to move the "Com.rnents by the Public" portion of the agenda to the beginning of the meeting. °:l:his motion failed due to lack of a scc ond. Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding (7 apte:r• 17.5$ regarding Design Standard for -Large Retail est blis mets. Community Development Director Bartl:am p .resented the item and stated that a variety of issue had been changed by direction of the Planning Commission, The proposed changes were. 1) Section 1 x.58.021-1 a.xi €ern Size Limitations. ,Staff did not fill in any square footage numbers until the natter was discussed, There was also an alternative noted in this section for any building exp tiding a certain square footage would need to go through the Use Permit pros-ess. 2) Sections 17.59.112 -Parking standards, Retail, Four (4) spaces for every 1,000 square feet; ,e staur rt fifteen (15) spaces for every 1,000 square feet; F itnessl I alth Club, six () spaces for every 1;000 square feet; axa!d the ability for a Multi parking structure. 3) Bicycle, circulation to be separated from vehicular traffic. He further ranted that staff bad received two binders with signatures from Wal Dart and a fax from a law firm outlining heir opinion on why restrictions of size limitations were not good, Commissioner oner Heinitz pointed out bicycle mishaps in commercial shopping centers. Mr. Bartlarn replied that by using traffic calming measures within a center, traffic would be forced to slow down. Commissioner Mattheis felt the parking standard for retail (4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft) zz"'ay be t€gid low, Ile did not like putting a square footage limitation on new buildings. Commissioner Heinitz also did not like putting a limitation on the square footage of a building;. 4c furiher stated that the new ordinance would be used. for future development. If the proposed guidelines had been in place, then the City would not have the businesses that they do today. Coa3 mis.sioner Aguirre asked if parking standard 17.58.112 (50% of parking be in front of building) would alleviate a "sea of parking"? Commissioner Mattheis replied his issue was to minimize the amount of parking as Hauch as possible but still keep the numbers realistic. Commissioner l augan felt for retail (4 spaces per 1,000 sq. f1:.) was unrealistic. He suggested 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. He was in favor of Navin 50% of the parking; in front of a stare. Due to safety issues, lie did aot like tbt-, idea of having multiple e.ntrieg into a business. He: felt putting a 100,000 square -foot limitation on any buildings was too small. Con-imiss oner Phillips felt: 15 spaces for restaurants were too high. He was in favor of a conditional use permit process for big projects. Commissioner Doran pointed out that the guidelines were trying to assist on just how a building would be designed. She fell that for retail (4 spaces per 1,004 sq, ft.) was reasonable. Sht suggested that landscape standards be merged into the Ordinance. Mr. l= ar•tla.m replied that they would be added. Vhairman.Matth is reminded those in attendance that the Commission was only addressing design issues and not Talking about any one particular project. The standards would be applied to all future retail development over 25,400 square feet, If anyone wanted to :talk about ether issues, they would be able to speak at the Comments by Public portion of the meeting, Hearing erre to Public Laddie Erbele, 720 Cypress Run, Woodbridge. els. Erbele represented the Sierra Club. She never>envisioned what is now built and felt it was time to set limits on the size of buUd.ings, Need to realize the value of farmland and use it wisely. Betsy Fiske, 727 S. Lee Avenue, Lodi. Ms. Fiske wanted to reserve Lodi's unique sense of place. She suggested putting a 75,400 square foot cap on larger buildings. She did not watt traffic to increase with any development. Vic I QMelo, Castle Court, San Ralnon, CA. Mr. DeMelo felt the design standards were -eery strong guidelines for the designing. of larger buildings. He was in charge of leasing existing b ildiDgs within Wal Mart development, fie noted that every tenant had an excess of parking. 'The reason being is that smaller businesses turn over more quickly and he must keep flexible parking standards for other incoming businesses. A :strict parking standard would tarn away many businesses. John Thompson, J896 W, Turner Road, Lodi. Mr. Thompson was. concerned on what happens when a super -center moves into a community and existing "big box" stores are vacated. The Ions of an anchor store could have an impact to other stares in shopping center. He suggested. an Ordinance that limits non-taxable sales. Eileen St, Yves, 310 S. Grange Avenue, Lodi. Ms. St. Yves was concerned about the conversion of farmland to commercial use. She felt the City needed a plan for future commercial development. She asked the commission and public not to pick on new retailers with the new design guidelines, but to also look at existing commercial buildings, She wanted to keep sales tax dollars in Lodi, Tire. Vrc min, St:eefel, Levitt. & Weiss', One Embarcadero Venter, San Francisco, VA. Mr. Oren in was present to represent his firm and he was opposed to any size restrictions being placed on buildings, He felt there was no factual basis on patting a limitation of 1,00! 0(} square feet for any building, He felt the city was using planning tools to 11mit eertain businesses within the city and it was an unproper use of planning tools. Th ere would be a negative economic impact with a size limitation. .,Ann Cerney, 90 '. Fine Street, Lodi. else Cerney felt the city should not be too terribly concerned about future businesses they should be mostly concerned about what the community would look like over many years. She suggested an 80,000 square foot limitation without a conditional use permit. She was also opposed to the changes in the parking standard. She wanted 3 parking spaces rather than 4 parking spaces per 1,000 sq, t. and not a sliding scale. She asked why not make the minimum the maximurn? She also asked that a certain percentage of the site be permeable so that water could seep_ down to groundwater, also suggested that traffic should have very little impact, iic hae1 leo kner-, 46 Valley Oak place, Woodbridge. r. Folkner was the manager of a large retailer in the city. fie presented the commission with a petition containing 1,600 signatures gathered from his customers. Ile .noted that customers come from all over the area to shop in Lodi. He was not in favor of putting a square -footage limitation on any building, Commissioner l einitz asked how many people fir. Folker employed at his store? ?fir. .Volker replied, 340 employees and that they all start above minimum wage. Kett Roberts, 239 Oriole Lane, Lodi, Mr. Roberts noted that the petition. signed was from mostly people who don't live in Lodi. He suggested a 130,000 square- foot limitation; .If the big box stores wart to came to Lodi they world have to conform to the size limitations, Jim Watt, Savemart Supermarkets. Mr. Wait stated that there was potential litigation on the square footage issue. He had a number of stores have 4 parking spaces per thousand and it works, fle suggested a compromise at 4.3 parking stalls per thousand square feet. He also suggested that a Use Permit be done for any buildings in excess of 75,000 square-fect. Daryl l ravvma:n., 3315 Fernside Blvd,, Alameda, CA, .Mr. Browman was in support of design guidelinuse He pointed out that if adopted the community would have to live with the standards. fie was against a size limitation. and felt that with the guidelines in place, it would make a shopping center better designed, regarding the parking standard of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq, ft; it was generally 5 per 1,000 sq. ft for most retailers, and restaurants required more parking. The location of parking stalls should be conveniem for customers and as far as inultiple entrances, there could be security iss«os. In regards to the screening of loading docks, the building could be designed to shield screen them, Robin Knowlton, 410 W. Oak Street, Lodi. FIs. Knowlton read a passage froze a book. People have roved to Lodi because they like the small. town atmosphere. She felt Putting a size limitation on square -footage was to make a project more compatible with the corgi€ri nity, Marcy other states have. pant a cap on square footage to beep their Doc;urnenM . communities more unique, She suggested a 120,000 square -foot maximum Randy Snider, 301 S. Ham Lane, Suite A., Lodi. lir. Snider is one of the property owner's of the parcel located at the southwest corner of Kettleman Lana and Lower Sacramento Road.. He stated that his project was not something that had developed over a sniall amount of tirrie and they had been working on the project for 12 years. He was one of the property owners during the Downtown Revitalization process and his property was designated for large retail use. Dean Meier, 852 S. California Street, Mr, Meier asked what people wanted Lodi look like in the future. He was in favor of a 100,000 square foot maximum. John Donovwi, 425 W. Walnut Street, Lodi, Mr. Donovan shared that ordinances could be changed; every 10 years. What is perinanent is what the impact would be to Lodi. He did riot want a "sea of parking39 in the front of any building. The community needs to have input into design of project. He did not believe that Lodi would be left behind tconoa i ally if a. square footage restriction were set. He felt that 15 stalls for restaurants vs. 4 stalls for retail were very ambiguous. He would like to see more parking structures erected for such projects. Wanda Adolf, 13271 La. Locke load. Ms. Adolf stated that if big box stores don't coxae to Lodi, thea money would be going to other communities. Steve Pechin, 323 W, Llna Street. Mr, Pechin was a resident as well as a designer, He Felt that any strict limitations with conflict with the design of a building. Businesses would focus more on the inside of the building rather than the outside. He suggested a Use Permit as a compromise, ,Toe Pacino, 315 W, Viae Street, Lodi, Mr. Pac.ino felt that there needed to be some reasonable limitations set. Re was co cerned about the possibility of buildings becoming vacant when a new stare is built. Hearing Closed to the Public The Commission took a 5 -minute break. Commissioner M ttheis stated he did not see a nexus between size and design. You could have a building at 20,000 square -feet that looks ugly and you cold have a 150,000 square foot building that is beautiful. He felt the issues were underneath design, econom c in mature, and perhaps the idea of scale. He suggested separating the square footage issue from the design guidelines so that it could be discussed further, so that the design guidelines could go forward, In regards to parking standards. he wanted to discuss. he auni er of parking spaces per 1000 square -feet. He also wanted to discuss the language of restaurant vs. food service., Commissioner White telt that people from Lodi like the small town atmosphere; however, Lodi is a growing city- and will to continue to grow as long as people keep moving to Lodi. He was more concerned about the design of the building and not square -footage. He suggested 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet with 50% of parking in ;front of building. Con-unissioner Haugan did not want any size limitations set. He was agreeable to Docur enW 4 increasing the parking from 4 to 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, Commissioner Heinitz was also opposed to setting; size limitations on buildings, fie was concerned about the economic impacts if businesses don't come to Lodz. He suggested 5 parking spaces per 1.,000 square feet with a sliding scale. Commissioner Phillips also supported that 50% of'parking be placed in front of the building and that there be 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. He was also desirous of seein projects that would tuaximize Lodi's tax dollar base. He stated the he could agree to a separate discussion regarding size. Cornmiss over Aguirre felt here should be more discussion regarding restrictions on building sizes. He suggested stores that had more than one-story. He was also in favor of the 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, Commissioner Moran also liked the suggestion of 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Shc also felt that r ore discussion was needed on the square footage issue. She suggested incorporating the new landscape requirements to the ordinance. A motion was made by Commissioner Aguirre, Mattheis second, as amended to approve with the exclusion of size, landscape standards, and parking of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq -4, and with modification to the followings section; 17.58.1 I2 -E -to add landscape. standards. Disci,sI;iotl ensued regarding the parking when business types change. Commissioner,; Moran and Phillips voiced concerns over the increase in parking along with the r stauxant standard. Commissioner Aguirre withdrew his motion in order to discuss the size limitation issue further. lie Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Heinitz, Hau an second, voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 17.58 regarding Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments with tilt following changes: 1) `That no further discussion on size occur, 2) Section: 17.5& 1 l.2 -that an. item "E" be added to read, "Landscaping in parking areas shall in.Porporate: such material, as necessary, in order to achieve a mirtimum 50% shading reqUITCITient within 5 years of planting," 3) Section 1.7.51,112-C, that the standard for Retail be clanged From 4 spaces to 5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. Commissioner Phillips and Moran stated they would vote against motion, He felt a Use Permit was a. reasonable for maxiz am size. Chain an Mwulwis felt that more discussion should occur separately and suggested he could not support the motion. f'la.is r a.otion was amended by C.oiaamissionei, Heinitz with the c oneurrance of Commissioner flau.gan to remove Section. 17.58.021 (Maximum Size Limitations) from the Ordinance with f4ther discussion to ensue. Docment4 5 AYES, Commissioners. Aguirre, l augan, Heinitz, White and Chairman atthe:is NOES: Commissioners. Phillips and Doran ABSENT: Cor rnissiojiers: ABSTAIN. Commissioners Chairman l° atthcis stated the Commission needed a discussion of what is at issue. Commissioner White stated that the Commission needed to decide if there was going to be discussion on sire limit. and if so would it require a Use Per .it? Commissioner Haugan felt you had to set a size at the lamest so far, 160,000 but was not in favor of any size till) tations. Commissioner 1-leintiz was not in favor of any size limitations and supported the requireme. nt of a. Else Permit. Commissioner Phillips stated that a square footage limitation should be debated; However, a Use permit would allow staff to take a double look at a project. Commissioner Aguirre suggested a 130,000 square foot limitation with a Use Pe€tnit. Commissioner Moran felt more discussion was needed regarding the square footage issue, ShQ liked the idea of a U se Permit, She feltt that, there should be another open forum on lie matter. Commissioner oner Sattheis suggested bringing the square footage issue back for further discussion as a Planning Matter at a future Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Phillips asked staff to come back with some warding on a conditional use petmi. . Chaim ark lattheis asked Mr. Schwabauer about any CEQA issues with any size limitation fir. Schwabauer felt there were no concerns. A motion was made by Commissioner Haugan to not discuss the size issue any further. This motioned died daze to lack of a second. Chairrnanlatthei.s Deeded additional information before a decision could be made and asked that the discussion be continued until a future meeting. The Commission concurred. C omme t$. y the Public Ann C ern y, 900 lei. Vine Street, Dodi, Ms. Cerney appreciated the work done by the Commission. If commercial development is to take place, look at the whole picture, noi: just economically. If the State tales sales taxes fl'om the cities, it would not be worth having a large project. She liked the concept of putting a inoratorium on big box projects until the square footage issue was resolved, Frieda Kroll, 2315 N- Thurman load, Acarnpo, Itis. Kroll moved from a small town to Lodi, She, had seen beau.tiilzl big buildings and she also worked for Wal-Mart. The Commission had done a fine done with the development of the city and should not DocurnenO. 6 make a size limitation, Kathy Grant, 841 Cardinal Street., Lodi, T1s, Grant felt the landscape designcd should not be all abort aesthetics, but also conservation. She asked- that equal ground be replaced whenever lard is taken away for development l icliael Fotkncr, 46 Valley Oak Pla e, Woodbridge, lir. Folkner shared that a new Wal-Mart Superstore would employ around 600 people. He is proud of all his employees and noted that the new stare would open jobs for everyone. ADJOURNMENT As there was no fwher business to be brought before the Planning Commission, Chair an I attheis diourn d the session at 1 l.: 15 p,m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Wagner Secretary DocumQnO MAR -09-2W4 16>50 SAVE MART MART SOPSAMAN."..Ts 109) 333-6842 r,.:. 22 We stpine Street l Dear Mr., , 09 577 3B57 P.01/01 P 0- Bea: 4278, Afodes(o, Caflfs)ralira 96352-4278 1600 Slandif}ard AWiwe-, f:AtPitrah a 9€, :5W (.' arJXWUfr' WW (200915 77. 1 OW ter, x �. �, _.. 4 �. .. S. # - x - ♦.: �: ,� .+. a, from both streets. In thacas.* of a Wal-Mart Super Store, this can wily be�:hand*&by cutting an enbV point to their garden center in order to m . eat this requirement. 107consideration.my.cornmenb to the Council for their TOTAL R.01 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AMENDING LODI MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 - ZONING BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.58 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Lodi Municipal Code Title 17 — "Zoning" is hereby amended by adding Chapter 17.58 "Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments" to read as follows: Chapter 17.58 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS Sections: 17.58.010 — Purpose 17.58.020 —Applicability 17.58.022 - Variances 17.58.030 — Facades and Exterior Walls 17.58.040 — Smaller Retail Stores 17.58.050 — Detail Features 17.58.060 — Roofs 17.58.070 — Materials and Colors 17.58.080 — Entryways 17.58.090 — Back and Side Facades 17.58.100 — Entrances 17.58.110 — Off -Street Parking Areas 17.58.120 — Back Sides 17.58.130 — Outdoor Storage, Trash Collection, and Loading Areas 17.58.140 — Pedestrian and Bicycle Flows 17.58.150 — Central Features and Community Spaces 17.58.160 — Delivery/Loading Operations Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments 17.58.010 - Purpose The City of Lodi adopted this ordinance on large retail developments - "superstores" - to provide the community with clear and enforceable policies to mitigate visual impacts. These guidelines provide the opportunity to set standards for future developments to ensure that future development fits with the expectations and meets the needs of the community. These standards and guidelines are a response to dissatisfaction with corporate chain marketing strategy dictating design that is indifferent to local identity and interests. The main goal is to encourage development that contributes to Lodi as a unique place by reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways. Large retail developments depend on high visibility from major public streets. In turn, their design determines much of the character and attractiveness of major streetscapes in the city. The marketing interests of many corporations, even with strong image making design by professional designers, can be potentially detrimental to community aspirations and sense of place when they result in massive individual developments that do not contribute to or integrate with the city in a positive way. Lodi already has a development review system that promotes solutions to these general issues. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to augment those existing criteria with more specific interpretations that apply to the design of large retail store developments. These standards and guidelines require a basic level of architectural variety, compatible scale, pedestrian and bicycle access, and mitigation of negative impacts. The standards are by no means intended to limit creativity; it is the City's hope that they will serve as a useful tool for design professionals engaged in site-specific design in context. They are placed within the framework of the Zoning Ordinance, which provides for variance from the requirements if the proposal is equal to or better than the City's requirements. 17.58.020 —Applicability The following standards and guidelines are intended to be used as a design aid by developers poposing large retail developments in community regional shopping centers or as uses -by -right; and as an evaluation tool by the City staff, Planning Commission, and Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee in their review processes. These standards and guidelines apply to all retail establishments of more than 25,000 square feet. The "Intent" is provided in order to educate planners, design consultants, developers and City staff about the design objectives while the "Standards" are mandatory. The intent and standards are to be used in conjunction with all development criteria of the Lodi Municipal Code. 17.58.022— Variances The Planning Commission is empowered to grant variances to the mandatory standards under the circumstances provided by the California Government Code. 17.58.030 - Facades and Exterior Walls 17.58.031 - Intent: Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearances of large retail buildings and provide visual interest that will to consistent with the community's identity, character and scale. This is to encourage a more human scale that Lodi residents will be able to identify with their community. - 2 - pm� i mo=mLz sb&u o3inprisc at kzst 20% of facade ler4o wwkb A mLAmum depth of 17.58.032 Standards: A. Facades greater than 100 feet in length, measured horizontally, shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least 3% of the length of the fagade and extending at least 20 percent of the length of the facade. No uninterrupted length of any fagade shall exceed 100 horizontal feet. B. Ground floor facades that face public streets shall have arcades, display windows, entry areas, awnings, or other such features along no less than 60 percent of their horizontal length. VMVDOVs AWMKGS EHTRYAREAS AFKADES Animating features such as these must total 60% of total facade length for any facade. abutting a public street 17.58.040 - Smaller Retail Stores 17.58.041 — Intent: The presence of smaller retail stores gives a center a "friendlier" appearance by creating variety, breaking up large expanses, and expanding the range of the site's activities. Windows and window displays of such stores should be used to contribute to the visual interest of exterior facades. The standards presented in this section are directed toward those situations where additional, smaller stores, with separate, exterior customer entrances are located in principal buildings. 17.58.042 — Standard: Where principal buildings contain additional, separately owned stores which occupy less than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area, with separate, exterior customer entrances: A. The street level facade of such stores shall have storefront windows between the height of three feet and eight feet above the walkway grade for no less than 60 percent of the horizontal length of the building facade of such additional stores. B. Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills, shutters, or other such forms of framing. -3- 17.58.050 - Detail Features 17.58.051 — Intent: Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest at the scale of the pedestrian, reduce massive aesthetic effects, and recognize local character. The elements in the following standard should be integral parts of the building fabric, and not superficially applied trim or graphics, or paint. 17.58.052 — Standard A Building facades must include a repeating pattern that shall include no less than three of the elements listed below: 1. Color change. 2. Texture change. 3. Material module change. 4. Expression of architectural or structural bay through a change in plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal, or projecting rib. 1`as5 structural bay layout B. At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. C. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than thirty (30) feet, either horizontally or vertically. M 17.58.060 — Roofs 17.58.061 — Intent: Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest to, and reduce the massive scale of, large buildings. Roof features should complement the character of adjoining neighborhoods. 17.58.062 — Standard: Roofs shall have no less than two of the following features: A Parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment such as HVAC units from public view. The average height of such parapets shall not exceed 15% of the height of the awraw supporting wall and PaMpCt heWasha such parapets shall not t owaM 15% of at any point exceed one- waL heou third of the height of the supporting wall. Such paraheca parapets shall feature $"At "°` ewmed three dimensional i °F�"�'°`�" wall IM4011 cornice treatment. B. Overhanging eaves, extending no less than 3 feet past the supporting walls. C. Sloping roofs that do not exceed the average height of the supporting walls, with an average slope greater than or equal to 1 foot of vertical rise for every 3 feet of horizontal run and less than or equal to 1 foot of vertical rise for every 1 foot of horizontal run. D. Three or more roof slope planes. -5- 17.58.070 - Materials and Colors 17.58.071 — Intent: Exterior building materials and colors comprise a significant part of the visual impact of a building. Therefore, they should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods. 17.58.072 — Standard: A. Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials. These include, without limitation: 1. clay brick 2. wood 3. rock or other native stone 4. stucco, of varied finishes. 5. tinted, textured, concrete masonry units B. Facade colors shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited. C. Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas. D. Predominant exterior building materials shall not include the following: 1. smooth -faced concrete block 2. smooth finished tilt -up concrete panels 3. pre -fabricated steel panels, except as an architectural roofing material 17.58.080 — Building Entryways 17.58.081 — Intent: Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation making them easy to identify both day and night as well as providing aesthetically pleasing character to the building. The standards identify desirable entryway design features. 17.58.082 — Standard: A. Each principal building on a site shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances utilizing no less than three of the following to become the most prominent features: 1. canopies or porticos 2. overhangs 3. recesses/projections 4. arcades 5. raised corniced parapets over the door 6. peaked roof forms (e.g. gable or hip) 7. arches 8. outdoor patios 9. display windows 10. architectural details such as tile work and moldings which are integrated into the building structure and design 11. integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places for sitting B. Where additional stores will be located in the principal building, each such store shall have at least one exterior customer entrance, which shall conform to the above requirements. 17.58.090 - Back and Side Facades 17.58.091 — Intent: All facades of a building which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should contribute to the pleasing scale features of the building and encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to the front facade. 17.58.091 — Standards: All building facades which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets shall comply with the requirements of, Section 17.58.030 of these Design Standards and Guidelines. 17.58.100 — Pedestrian Entrances 17.58.101 —Intent: -7- Large retail buildings should feature multiple entrances, which reduce walking distances from parking areas and public sidewalks, and provide convenient access to individual stores, or departments within a store. Multiple entrances can also mitigate the effect of uninterrupted walls and neglected areas that are often facing bordering land uses. 17.58.102 — Standard: a A All sides of a principal building that face an abutting public street shall feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building faces more than two public streets, this requirement shall only apply to two sides of the building; the side facing the primary street, and another side facing a second street. Movie theatres are exempt from this requirement. Public Street Smaller Retail Stores with Customer Entrances C Customer Entrances a 17.58.110 — Off -Street Parking Areas 17.58.111 — Intent: Parking areas should provide safe, convenient, and efficient access. Parking should be distributed around large buildings in order to shorten the distances between buildings and public sidewalks, and reduce the visual impact of one large paved surface. With buildings located closer to streets, the scale of the complex is reduced, walking is encouraged, and architectural details take on added importance. Covering the ground with asphalt has several long-term environmental impacts including excessive storm water run-off during the winter and tremendous increases in the ambient heat radiated by the asphalt. In order to provide adequate parking while practicing good stewardship of resources, the City has established a minimum and maximum range of off-street parking for large retail operations. 17.58.112 — Standard: A. No more than fifty (50) percent of the off-street parking area for the lot, tract or area of land devoted to the large retail establishment shall be located between the front facade of the large retail establishment and the abutting streets (the "Front Parking Area. The front parking area shall be determined by drawing a line from the front corners of the building, parallel with the building sides, straight to the public street forming a 90 degree angle with the front fagade. B. Parking spaces in the Front Parking Area shall be counted to include all parking spaces within the boundaries of the Front Parking Area, including: (i) all partial parking spaces if the part inside the Front Parking Area boundary lines constitutes more than one-half ('/2) of the parking space, and (ii) all parking spaces associated with any pad sites located within the Front Parking Area boundaries. C. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided by a large-scale retail operation shall be 2 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. The maximum number of off-street parking spaces shall not exceed the following: 0o Retail: Five (5) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. oo Restaurant: Fifteen (15) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. oo Fitness/Health Club: Six (6) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. M For phased developments, parking areas shall only be constructed when the adjoining building for which the parking is required is built. Additional parking stalls, beyond the maximums provided, may be allowed when developed in a multi-level structure with Planning Commission approval. D. Parking lot light poles shall not exceed a height of 25 feet. E. Landscaping in parking areas shall incorporate such material, as necessary, in order to achieve a minimum 50% shading requirement within 5 years of planting. 17.58.120 - Back Sides 17.58.121 — Intent: The rear or sides of buildings often present an unattractive view of blank walls, loading areas, storage areas, HVAC units, garbage receptacles, and other such features. Architectural and landscaping features should mitigate these impacts. 17.58.122 — Standard: A. The minimum setback for any building facade shall be thirty-five (35) feet from the nearest property line. B. Where the fagade of a large scale retail building faces a public street that is adjacent to an existing or planned residential zone boundary or uses, an earthen berm no less than 6 feet in height, containing evergreen trees planted at intervals of 20 feet on center, or the equivalent in clusters, shall be provided. C. Garbage receptacles shall be constructed of solid textured masonry material with a decorative masonry cap. The gates frames shall be constructed of heavy gauge steel and provided with a solid opaque finish. Enclosures shall be provided with a cover such that storm water run-off from the enclosure is minimized. 17.58.130 - Outdoor Storage, Trash Collection, and Loading Areas 17.58.131 — Intent: Loading areas and outdoor storage areas exert visual and noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. These areas, when visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets, should be screened, recessed or enclosed. While screens and recesses can effectively mitigate these impacts, the selection of inappropriate screening materials can exacerbate the problem. Appropriate locations for loading and outdoor storage areas include areas between buildings, where more than one building is located on a site and such buildings are not more than 40 feet apart, or on those sides of buildings that do not have customer entrances. - 10- 17.58.132 — Standard: A Areas for outdoor storage, truck parking, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall not be visible from abutting streets. B. No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall be located within 20 feet of any public street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way. C. Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash collection, trash compaction, and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets, and no attention is attracted to the functions by the use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. D. Non -enclosed areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory shall be permanently defined and screened with landscaping, walls and/or fences. Materials, colors, and design of screening walls and/or fences and the cover shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building. If such areas are to be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building. 17.58.140 - Pedestrian and bicycle Flows 17.58.141 — Intent: Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility opens auto -oriented developments to the neighborhood, reducing traffic impacts and enabling the development to project a friendlier, more inviting image. This section sets forth standards for public sidewalks and internal circulation systems that can provide user-friendly access as well as pedestrian safety, shelter, and convenience within the center grounds. 17.58.142 — Standard: A Sidewalks at least 8 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. B. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways, no less than 8 feet in width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right-of-way to the principal customer entrance of all principal buildings on the site. At a minimum, walkways shall connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but not limited to, transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry points, and shall feature adjoining landscaped areas that include trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds, ground covers, or other such materials for no less than 50 percent of their length. -11- C. Sidewalks, no less than 8 feet in width, shall be provided along the full length of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance, and along any facade abutting public parking areas. A minimum six (6) foot wide landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk, except where features such as arcades or entry ways are part of the facade. D. Internal pedestrian walkways provided in conformance with Part (b.) above shall provide weather protection features such as awnings or arcades within 30 feet of all customer entrances. E. All internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as the attractiveness of the walkways. Traffic calming measures shall be incorporated where pedestrian walkways intersect with drive aisles. F. Bicycle circulation shall be separated from vehicular traffic and shall be provided from each public street access to bicycle parking areas required throughout the site. 17.58.150 - Central Features and Community Spaces 17.58.151 — Intent: Buildings should offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces, and amenities. Entrances and parking lots should be configured to be functional and inviting with walkways conveniently tied to logical destinations. Bus stops and drop- off/pick-up points should be considered as integral parts of the configuration. Pedestrian ways should be anchored by special design features such as towers, arcades, porticos, pedestrian light fixtures, bollards, planter walls, and other architectural elements that define circulation ways and outdoor spaces. Examples of outdoor spaces are plazas, patios, courtyards, and window shopping areas. The features and spaces should enhance the building and the center as integral parts of the community fabric. 17.58.152 — Standard: A. Each retail establishment subject to these standards shall contribute to the establishment or enhancement of community and public spaces by providing at least two of the following: patio/seating area, pedestrian plaza with benches, transportation center, window shopping walkway, outdoor playground area, kiosk area, water feature, clock tower, or other such deliberately shaped area and/or a focal feature or amenity that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, adequately enhances such community and public spaces. B. All such areas shall have direct access to the public sidewalk network and such features shall not be constructed of materials that are inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. - 12- is wee= r Example of a center with numerous special features and community spaces. 17.58.160 - Delivery/Loading Operations 17.58.161 — Intent: Delivery and loading operations should not disturb adjoining neighborhoods, or other uses. 17.58.162 — Standard: A. No delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction, or other such operations shall be permitted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless the applicant submits evidence that sound barriers between all areas for such operations effectively reduce noise emissions to a level of 60 db, as measured at the lot line of any adjoining property. B. Delivery trucks shall not be allowed to remain running in an idle state during loading and unloading activities. SECTION 2. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist. SECTION 3. No Mandatory Duty of Care. This ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner which imposes upon the City, or any officer or employee thereof, a mandatory duty of care towards persons or property within the City or outside of the City so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof. -13- SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be published one time in the "Lodi News -Sentinel," a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi and shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage and approval. Approved this day of , 2004 LARRY D. HANSEN Mayor Attest: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- State of California County of San Joaquin, ss. I, Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held March 17, 2004, and was thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print at a regular meeting of said Council held , 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — NOES; COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — I further certify that Ordinance No. was approved and signed by the Mayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published pursuant to law. Approved as to Form: D. STEPHEN SCHWABAUER Interim City Attorney SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk -14- 19apq Koz '9 4016yq w911v 4119 to pa4ug jnb'S1Hriitt1WIH# 3 -s'a'c :, , 1 01 £P 15pn41tts1V Von °p 45t2yy+ :paps La IlaunAO S? 3 1pA i 94110 tetatt) Ail atltl�r! Aql 0; a4?eillta 1 °lecatiJ zj3uiae3o" u1� 1sM b'tlali.J 11 eqg AI ool tttsta ttauulrustds¢aatirJ �ittpran+ �i an 001160.. . ptatplaosop tltig3oB€i ailq itl pos+tits tasty 8ucietiios to rtuh sa3raSi Osotll Aluo tiupp .Oi> p�litwii q AVw nah uncia ui tall�ua laatr;ns oUk af�usTPN:3 noA 11 t aq.lx�S }ia aapa u .vq O At tt s#unw0ii is II" p4 'u€oao.4_it0tnpotf s UP"b4 ota-PI 201ac1 DuAl} Alto 1a )pojb A113 l 0113 WIM P0tll qrAcuslsaauwlvis !SaJ4 iqauk. ab , oLuu�atIusA ®1 POPAal eats suers aztd ga€alseistul 11V 'PIuiaJllaJ 'Iba.'jarHrlS aq ALM urea sit} diajrtn[3itr uotitrota}u IWO." .oB;o'1 aA1&ui s.�rnp�u;etallboisutzctiw4tst4{oiyufuji;mntatxtaors;{ sozotaAVowtimio u uou!P Aio4t'AI t_ st?uttdde lg uAiiuptutur��c s,upissrtutuQ BuiuuOid o;il aoliisuoa s l (' ;a(jllasw 6ui4aotlpi flWl axagi -uoa o! 'P)l 'l4iaei! oti}{ }soM 4£ `wnju ai6truieO O4I Pts 6uiZpliq d a 12n 'Uopel uy 041 sty jH"P1W8tj1 U065�sv )a —w,d UO - lo anaq.941 to kGoa '1.t.LfAMYy Aepsoupoi L11) Mm 143MO A$iAWM S1 nolYci nN1UV2j; *178nd 40;13?jON Please immediatelycoqfirmt by calling 333-6702 OF LORI ' 0. BOX 3006 LOCI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1.910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS APPROVAL�jUBJEqT,- PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF ;. ESTABLISHMENTSORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING CHAPTER 17.58 REGARDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LARGE RETAIL IFSaturday, March 6, 2004 TEAR SHEETS WANTED, T reO_i3)�ai.ea e SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: SUSAN BLA K TO , CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi. CA 95241-1910 DATED: : THURS DA Y, MARCH 4, 2004 t PATRICIA OCHOA ADMINISTRATIVE ISTRATIV CLERK Faxed to the Sentinel at 359m1084 at e ems. me) on A�tdatej (Pages) t -NS Phoned to confirm receipt of W1 pages at JacTricia --Lien (initials) CQrraslac§��i��s.Eicsc CITY OF LODI Cariiegie Fortim ®R 305 West Phis Street, Lodi NE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date. Marcie 17, 2044 Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Susan J, Blackston City Clerk. Telephone: (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS l R Y GIVEN that on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at the hour of 7:00 p.m,, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will Conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the fallowing matter: a, 0 consider the Planning Commission's mzammendatiost of appeoval to the City Council to adapt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 17.58 regarding Design Standards for targe Retail Establishments information regarding this iie.m may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Department, 221 Wast Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing, If you chailenge the subject Matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Publlc Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, ai or prier to the Public Hearing, By Order of the Lodi City Council: Swsan .t. Btackstw City Clerk 119117111111WAI=0 i Approved as to form: D, Stephen Schwabauer Interim City Attorney '0. 4 M K "jux. On Thursday, March 45 2004 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation o.f approval to the City Council to adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 17.58 regarding Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"), was posted at the following four locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hail Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum J declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 'Eixecuted on March 4, 2004, at Lodi, California. I P- . Administrative Clerk ORDERED BY, CITY CLERK Jacqueline L. Taylor, CMC Deputy City Clerk Jennifer K Perrin, CMC Deputy City Clerk DECLARATION OF MAILING On March 4, 2004, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 17.58 regarding De sign Standards for Large Retail Establishments, marked Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and GOrrect. ExeWted on March 4, 2004, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: ACQUELINE L. TAYLOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK P le"CHOA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK ORDERED BY: 111111111 " ! . 11ii Design Standards for Large Retail Establishmonts, 1) Win Donovan, 425 W, Walnut Street #4, Lodi, CA 95240 IEXHIBil': B.... ITEM G-3 All of the attached communications pertain to the issue of large retail establishments and were received subsequent to Council Members' mail delivery on Tuesday, March 16. (Excerpt from City Clerk's procedure for handling Council Communication — related to the definition of "Blue Sheets".) "Blue Sheets" Communication to the City Council pertaining to an item on the current agenda that was received after the last mail delivery to Council Members, is copied on blue paper with the corresponding agenda item number identified at the top right comer. This communication is placed on the Council dais alongside the agenda for review by Council Members prior to the item discussion. Blue sheets are also distributed to the City Manager, City Attomey, other affected departments, the press table, and are included in the "blue sheet" binder on the public information table in the Carnegie Forum on the day of the meeting. MAR -17-2004 WED 01:31 PM LODI IRON WORKS INC FAX NO. 209 339 1453 P. 02 r March 17, 2004 To the Members of Lodi City Council: My name is Kevin Van Steenberge; I reside at 1208 Devine Drive, Lodi, CA. I am president of Lodi Iron Works, and on the board of directors of several entities. I am in favor of the Wal Mart Supercenter coming to Lodi, as my company uses many different suppliers in this community including Wal Mart. I believe if a business wants to expand, we should encourage them especially if this helps increases our tax revenue. Now days, tax revenue has been difficult to generate here in the State of California and funding our city coffers is getting more difficult. I encourage expansion, as this would help existing businesses from getting additional taxes. I don't think having a Wal Mart Supercenter is going to chase business away from other stores; I believe this will attract more business. Look what happened with Walgreen moving close to Lakewood Drugs. This helps attract additional business for the area. Wal Mart has been very generous to many local organizations, as I know they donate back to the community. As a board member of the Micke Grove Zoological Society — (fund raising arm for the Zoo), Wal Mart has generously donated to this organization to help our Zoo. Please consider the positives aspects of this great American company wanting to expand in our community. Thank you and good Iuck with you decision. Regards, LODI,IRON WORKS, INC K vin Van Steenberge n President 00 -..i rn F� 01 Gli MAR -17-2004 WED 01;31 PM LODI IRON WORKS INC FAX NO. 209 339 1453 C� LODI IRON WORKS, INC. L l PO BOX 1150, LODI, CA 95241-1150 209-368-5395 FAX 209-339-1453 Fax Cover Sheet Date: 3 r i2 .-o y TO. S w 5•t f31gc ��s�e/l. F -AX A- F : FP,0-A if: Xevin `Van Steenberge - President P�CONE #: (209)368-5395 F -AX #: (209) 339-.1453 # OF' PAgES ING THIS PAGE. � S•• 40� P. 01 Page 1 of 3 Jennifer Perrin From: Jennifer Perrin Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1;47 PM To: 'Patricia Wakefield'; Larry Hansen; Beckman@lodi; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Big box stores Dear Pat and Bud Wakefield: This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) City Attorney, and 3) Community Development. Thank you for expressing your views. Is/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message ----- From: Patricia Wakefield [mallto:mgisela@lnreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:41 PM To: Larry Hansen; Beckman@lodi; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Big box stores It makes no sense to approve another Wal-Mart (including grocery). 3 large grocery stores at this intersection? This is planned obsolescence leading to area blight. It is your responsibility to logically improve this area --not destroy it. With your approval the present ugly Wal-Mart will be empty. Who would want that building who would be an asset to our community --no one. Then Safeway or Food -4 -Less would go out --more empty stores. In this economy how long would it take to fill these stores? About the ugly big boxes. Again, it is your responsibility to improve our community. Now is the time to set upgraded standards (many communities already have) for our city. Let's make this the beautiful and inviting city that we all have taken pride in in the past. Look at downtown Walnut Creek, etc. As for this SW corner development. We need to save this area for an upscale department store that will not compete with Penney's and Marshall's leading to more empty stores. Please do the right thing for our city. Let us see some real planning for our future! Thank you. Pat and Bud Wakefield 249 Charles St. Lodi, 95240 3/17/2004 Page 1 of 2 Jennifer Perrin From: Jennifer Perrin Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:50 PM To: 'Ginny'; Larry Hansen Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock; Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Big Retail Development - YES! Dear Don and Ginny ferry: This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) City Attorney, and 3) Community Development. Thank you for expressing your views. Is/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message ----- From: Glnny [mailto:ginnylue@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:41 PM To: Larry Hansen Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Big Retail Development - YES! Dear Mayor Hansen and Council Members, We support Wal -Mart's building a Super Center in Lodi for the following reasons: 1. The City needs the tax base this store will provide. 2. The super center will create new jobs for Lodians. 3. Residents will no longer need to travel outside Lodi for products and services. 4. This store will reduce the amount of gasoline used to shop out of town. Please don't let the few who speak out loudly against this project, speak for the majority of us in Lodi who want to see this plan proceed! Thank you, Don & Ginny Perry 303 Tioga Drive Lodi, CA 95242 Wnnylue@comcast.net 3/17/2004 Nature Jennifer Perrin From: Jennifer Perrin Page 1 of 2 Sent: Wednesday, March 17,2004 10:39 AM To: 'carol'; Larry Hansen Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock; Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Barham Subject: RE: Wednesday, March 17th Council Meeting Dear Carol Cash: This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) City Attorney, and 3) Community Development. Thank you for expressing your views. /s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message ----- From: carol [mailto:kettois@lodinet.eom] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:30 AM To: Larry Hansen Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Wednesday, March 17th Council Meeting 173 Good Evening or Good Morning. It is my strong desire to see that a Wat*Mart Supercenter comes to our Town/City of Lodi. Let's face it, we can't go back to the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's so why are some of our Lodians bent on limiting the inevitable? We dont do the same things here any more. The town of Lodi isn't the same, regardless of whether there is a Supercenter here or not. We will never see a newspaper of 3-5 pages again, downtown doesn't close up at 5:00 p.m. any longer and we are growing by leaps and bounds. I really can not understand why the leaders and some groups in Lodi like to keep things stirred up here. Isn't this a city of free enterprise? Do the owners of other retail shops/stores have the right to vote against free enterprise? How quickly they have forgotten the freedoms that we appreciate when we say the Pledge of Alliance and sing our National Anthem. We all stand in Union and give thanks together for our freedom(s) and that includes Wal"Mart shoppers and Associates who work there. We as employees of Wal`Mart sweat for our daily bread just like the rest of the world. This attack has been ruthless at times and not anywhere near truthful. The green postcard we received today in the mail must have cost some person(s) quite a bit of money and we found it quite an insult. Too bad the money it cost for that mailing wasn't donated to a family in need. it is written as though it comes from you, the City Council Members. 3/17/2004 Nature 3/17/2004 Page 2 of 2 Why not give Wal*Mart a chance to provide the City of Lodi additional jobs, a great place to shop and prove all these negative accusers wrong? Money will flow throughout the City when we most need it. There is much more good in having the Wal*Mart Supercenter in our town than what you are hearing from the Union Members and the "nay -sayers'. This is our plea and our families plea. Wal*Mart is proud, not ashamed of what it can do and has done for the customers in offering great prices and convenience. Question is, do we want to be a poor town, overrun with our youth and other individuals not having anywhere to go except downtown for shopping and entertainment (which really can not accommodate everyone anyway, nor appeals to everyone; Do we want to be satisfied with fewer jobs available, while people move here in town and have to go elsewhere to make a Living, and their monies are spent in other towns where attractions and shopping malls are abundant? Shopping should not be limited to downtown, mervyns, target and K -Mart. Why is it that Wal*Mart is not allowed to grow? Downtown can be rennovated, other stores can relocate and grow, but Wal*Mart is a so-called "Giant" and is given resistance for doing so well in accommodating the needs of the customers. it is the number one retailer, due to what it has offered the communities over the years; Supercenters are doing well in many other states and exists, along side of and across the street with many other retailers. Their intent is not to put anyone out of business, but rather give the consumer their choice of shopping and to be competitive and stay competitive, not to be the only place to shop.as is the claim. Business owners need to get creative and provide other things in order to compete; What is wrong with that? Lakewood Mall Pharmacist said 40 years in the business and they are still growing strong. No one is putting them out of business. We need this Supercenter to satisfy the needs of the community. Please put this matter of resistance to rest and let the Supercenter come to town. Thank you. Carol Cash Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Susan Blackston Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:32 AM To: 'W Maxwell' Cc: City Council; Dixon Flynn; Rad Bartlam; Steve Schwabauer Subject: RE: big box stores Dear William Maxwell: This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerks Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) City Attorney, and 3) Community Development. Thank you for expressing your views. Isl Susan J. Slackston, City Clerk -----Original Message ----- From. W Maxwell [ma !Ito: bmaxwe113@comcast-net] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:40 AM To: Susan Blackston; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land; John Beckman; Larry Hansen Subject: big box stores Dear Council Members: As a second generation property owner in Lodi I have great hopes for downtown. But every new development on the outskirts drives another nail in the coffin of downtown and makes Lodi less of a "community". We have seen it repeated countless times. Konradt Bartlam claims that to restrict Wal -Mart's expansion into Lodi at this point would not be "constant". So after all the orchards and vineyards are paved over, at least you'll be able to say you were "fair". The time to draw the line in the sand is now. Numerous studies have shown the long term detrimental effects of these box stores far out weigh the short term tax gain. I would like to develop my property in downtown Lodi, but due to its small size and code restrictions my options are limited. I am hoping property values in downtown Lodi increase to the point where I can attract an investor. As long as the city continues to allow unlimited sprawl on the edges of the city, downtown will never live up to its potential. William Maxwell Maxwell Properties 3/17/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Campion [campion@inreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:26 PM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Big Boxes Dear Council Member: As a Lodi Citizen, I am all in favor of a Lowe's and can't wait for it; however, am not In favor of a larger Walmart or Costco -type. Sincerely, Tamara Clauson Campion 421 Applewood Dr. Lodi, CA 95242 2091369-3525 3/17/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: carolyn hayes [carolynsblues@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12.49 AM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Cc: carolynsblues Subject: WALMART As far as I see it, limiting big -box (ie:WalMart) in Lodi will only serve to drive our own citizens to shop in other towns instead of keeping their revenue here. If they prefer to shop at the larger stores (as I do), then they will drive "all the way" to I -S and Eight Mile Rd to shop in THEIR nice new superstore (as I will)! Go ahead and put in all the superstores you want to -and allow the CITIZENS to decide where they want to spend THEIR $$..meanwhile Lodi can use the badly needed revenue and jobs to continue to boost ITS economy to keep up with the staggering demands placed upon it by the rapid growth we're experiencing. We are no longer a nice "little" town, and need to start thinking about expanding our options for people HERE in town -too many of our citizens drive to the bigger stores and malls to spend their $$..its time we gave them those same choices (and created THOSE jobs for OUR citizens) here in our own town. With the growth the way it is, and the rise in crime, etc that we're dealing with; we'd better figure out how to keep as much of OUR revenue HERE as we can. Its time to quit the games and the accusations and make them an ACTIVE part of this community (like they claim they want to be). MAKE them build an attractive location AND provide benefits and competitive wages if they truly want to help. GET them involved in community sponsorship programs, scholarship programs, upgrading roads due to increased traffic, adequate security, etc. Lets figure out a way to make this work to everyones advantage! AND NO, I DONT WORK FOR WALMART! Carolyn L Hayes Lodi, CA 3/17/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Jack and Linda e-mail [harkins@inreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:43 PM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Size Limit on Future Retail Hello to all, We are concerned citizens that are living in Lodi. We moved to Lodi 13 years ago, which turned out to be on the cutting edge of a changing community. We were drawn to this community for many things, one being it's size and charm. We have family in the Bay Area and when we gave them directions it was, take Hwy 5 to the Hwy 12 exit, drive 7 miles east to the first signal light, Ham Lane. Well we all know that has significantly changed. For the better, we think not. Why would this community need another "Super, Super, Superstore"! We have enough grocery stores to handle Lodi and the neighboring area. We certainly do NOT need this proposed Wal-Mart Superstore. Wal- Mart also pays below average wages, minimal benefits. Is this the type of business you would be proud of. Because of this, sure they can keep the prices down. We believe that the focus should be on the current retail owners. Take the current location of Wal-Mart, within a 3 mile radius we already have: Safeway, Raley's, Apple Market, Salisbury Market, Albertson's, S -Mart, Food 4 Less and various smaller food stores, plus various retail stores. What happened to focusing on Downtown and the current businesses in Lodi? We were talking about this very issue last Sunday when we had been shopping at Target. Take a look at that intersection, Lower Sacramento and Kettleman and seriously think about the traffic congestion. We currently live off Ham Ln on Sylvia Dr. Now with the increased homes on Harney Ln, the proposed bottleneck that you all seem to be considering, Lodi will become LANDLOCKED. Not a pretty sight in case of an emergency or even worse, HOLIDAY SHOPPING! Lodi has already lost so much. One of the other apparent "false statements" that had first been explained to us as new members of this community was there will always be a green belt between Lodi and Stockton and Lodi and Highway 5. HAHAHAHAHA, well that certainly is not true. This is some of the best agricultural land in the Country, how to you propose feeding the future generations. Time to think about the tax base if we start losing the businesses faster than we already have experienced. It is time you start listening to the folks that you are supposed to represent..... Not as Proud of Lodi as we were 13 years ago, Jack and Linda Harkins 819 Sylvia Dr Lodi 3/17/2004 Anti- Big Boxes Jennifer Perrin From: jpjohnson@sjcoe.net Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:18 AM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Anti- Big Boxes Dear City Council Members, Page 1 of 1 My wife and I have lived in Lodi for 11 years and love it here. We think this is a great place to raise our daughter, Erin (6) and our son Adam (3). We consider ourselves knowledgeable, concerned, and involved citizens who care about the future of the city. I confess I am not as familiar with the details of the "beautification" ordinance as i would like to be but I would like to submit my broader concern for your consideration. strongly oppose Walmart in particular and big box retailers in general. I think the best prospect for the future of Lodi lies in small family-owned businesses. I realize this approach will make it more difficult to pay the city's bills, but the nonmonetary rewards are immeasurable. I guess I oppose Lodi becoming another mediocre valley town (like Manteca) that looks like all the other mediocre valley towns that have been coopted by these big retailers and corporate franchises. I consider myself a free-market advocate and I usually oppose government encroachment in this area. But I fear that boycotting these establishments and trying to educate people about the damage they cause to a local economy is not going to be enough. It is in Lodi's best interest to support locally owned business enterprises by preventing the overwhelmingly powerful competition of national chains. Thank you for your service. Joe Johnson 369-7641 3/17/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin --- From: Kent Kent & Connie During [DuringtheStay@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:36 AM To: John Beckman; Larry Hansen; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land Subject: Keeping agriculture land Lodi is a uniquely lovely place to live. I've always thought of it as sort of an oasis here in the valley where businesses are squeezing in on us. I work in Sacramento so travel that corridor daily. I see what ugliness has happened at Elk Grove. I see the traffic congestion caused by that city's tremendous growth. I see the big sprawling shopping & I read that more will come. I travel to Stockton and see the large mall that was just built on the west side of Hwy 5, south of 8 Mile Road. I travel to Tracy and truly mom for those lovely valleys now dotted with cement parking lots and the stores that go with them. Drive further to Pleasanton only to see more. How in the world can we sustain this kind of commercialization? How in the world can we afford to lose this amount of agricultural land? What does this say about us as a culture -- that we have to have these businesses so close together? Please don't make Lodi ugly like Elk Grove! Please don't allow the huge, huge stores to come in. You've worked so hard to make the downtown so nice again. Thank you! But have you taken a look at what Kettleman Lane looks like? I don't want that entire street to eventually look like the block between Church and Hutchins cuz it's not much to be proud of. Please don't get side swiped by the tax base that these stores will offer; we don't want a quick fix only to be left with a dead, skeletal behemoth. Connie During 367-0262 Dunn tg heStay@comcast.net 3/17/2004 Page 1 of 2 Jennifer Perrin From: Luanne Hyde [hyde@inreach com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:55 PM To: Susan Hitchcock; Larry Hansen; Keith Land; John Beckman; Emily Howard Subject: "Big Box" stores Dear City Council Representative: Bring on the "Big Box" Stores. When did saving money become a crime? When it threatens the small business owner? Or, when the business is successful and it takes up more space in order to fully serve the ever-increasing needs of it's customers? Can't you see that protecting a few small businesses by reducing the size of a business or its parking lot will only come back to bite us all in the future? If Lodi keeps fighting the growth of businesses that can better serve the people here, the people will just drive to Stockton, Elk Grove or Modesto; taking with them their business and a great deal of Lodi's possible tax revenue. Yes, small businesses can and will suffer; especially if they don't come up with some new approach to ward off the drain on their income. But, isn't that what capitalism is all about? The man, or woman, who builds a better mouse trap - creates the successful business that brings home a larger slab of bacon. It's time the small merchants in Lodi stop complaining about what is happening to them, every time they feel threatened by a new business, and begin gearing their business to the NEEDS of their local and potential out-of-town customers. If customers want things that are cheaper, change to items that can be sold at a cheaper price. If the customers want service give them the service they won't find in a big box store. If they want live music played while they enjoy a cup of coffee or a book, give it to them. Be adventurous! Try new things! That's what business is all about. We must STOP trying to exclude stores that WILL serve the needs of the people. And, whatever you do, please don't allow a large store to come into town but reduce their parking spaces. That move will only make holidays like Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas a nightmare of traffic jams and a time when angry stressed out drivers get even more angry and stressed. Please START meeting the needs of people in Lodi. Let us have stores that give us quality and price in one location. Is that so wrong? And, for heaven's sake, don't make us drive around the block 50 times during peak shopping times to find a parking space. I know that Lodians would like to keep their town small with an air of friendliness and hometown charm but times have and are changing. We can no longer stay as we were in the '50s. Those years are gone! We have to move on. Even if moving on means allowing the larger stores to come into town. There will be another store that will quickly gobble up the old Wal-Mart location. It is a good one and it will not sit idle for long. In the meantime, the larger stores will provide a tax base for the city and add an attraction to visiting Lodi. Invite them. Don't fight them! Businesses in Downtown Lodi will survive if they, too, meet the needs of the people. There are some thriving new businesses today that were not here a few years ago. They are here because someone had a dream and used an innovative approach to bring people into their new ventures. At times, they even asked their clientele to pay more for an item than they ever had before. Who would have imagined a few years ago that we would pay three times or more for a cup of coffee just because it was made with an exotic name by a company called "Starbucks?" Impossible? Never! It's time to tell those who are crying "foul" to stop playing umpire and step up to the plate. Don't blame the proposed arrival of a creative business for your demise. Make your business more creative 3/17/2004 Page 2 of 2 and COMPETE!!! Take Responsibility! Make it happen! Many others have proven you can beat the "big boys" at their game. You just have to spend more time creating and less time whining and crying "It will kill us if the big box stores come to town!!!" I for one want the big stores in all their glory and with all the products and services they have to offer. The residents of Lodi and the City of Lodi will receive the many bargains and benefits from the store being here. As our City's representatives, I ask you "Please let it happen." We need stores such as the proposed Wal-Mart Superstore. I can't tell you how disappointed I was when Home Depot didn't come to Lodi. I was looking forward to buying in Lodi instead of going to Stockton to purchase items from Home Depot. I like their merchandise! If the store I want is not in Lodi, I will shop where there is a store. My point is, consumers will find the stores that sell the items they want, whether they are in Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Galt or Elk Grove. Why not let it be in our town, LODI? Thank you for reading this and for considering my wishes along with others you have received, when you discuss this matter on Wednesday. Luanne Hyde (209)931-0263 3/17/2004 Mar -16-04 0'.:19P BergDavis Public Affairs P.O1 RECOvED MAR y 20Fax Date: �ty Clerk.. � l�/oy Company: Fax Number: From: - ) (7\ cc) h Q Pages to Follow: I / Message:( So o,--) oj S Thi, faaimik trammisrion if intended only far the we of the addruree named above and may contain information that it privileged and mfrdential. Pkare forward directly to the addraree. 115 Sansone Street, Suite 1205, San Francisoe, CA 94104 T - 416.788.1000 F-415.788,0123 wwwbeMdWscnm Mar -16-04 01:19P — Lodi or Stockton'? Does Lodi really need any more ENORMOUS BIG l Traffic Increased Crime Decaying Vacant Buildings Reduced Open Space! Lost l?armland Do we want to live in beautiful Lodi or be just another Please call or email city council members and that we want a size-lintit on future retail Larry Hansen: 333-6800 ext 9280 Hansen crblodi.gov John Beckman: 333-6800 ext 9281 Beckman(Mod ggy Emily Howard: 333-6800 ext 2913 howard cillodi.Qov Keith Land: 333-6800 ext 29::8 land lodi.nov Susan Hitchcock: 333-6800 ext 2969 hitchcock 0lodi.00v KEEP LODI BEAUTIFUL aB etrerLcrdi®yahoo.com P.02 them know Lodi. Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Caroline Lange [cslange@direcway.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:40 PM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Big Boxes Dear City Council Members, My concern is different that other people's relating to the size of retail stores in Lodi, The Wal-Mart super center will be a detriment to retail business in the entire city of Lodi because of the location. The city's planning commission and council need to focus on ways to redevelop commercial retail business in the rest of Lodi and deemphasize the Kettleman Lane - Lower Sacramento Road area. By doing this Lodi will become a more viable, enjoyable place to live and do business. Sincerely, Stanton L. Lange 3/16/2004 Jennifer Perrin From: bebert2@juno.com Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:49 AM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Future Retail in Lodi I'm in favor of keeping our small-town atmoshpere. If I wanted MORE traffic and pollution and LESS open spaces and farmland I would have stayed in the Bay Area!!! I'd rather drive to Stockton or Elk Grove, to buy from the big stores if something I need can't be bought in town, than to have them in my own backyard. Brenda Ebert 2516 Carriage Dr Lodi 95242 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Jean Whitted (bjwhitted@hotmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:02 AM To: Larry Hansen Cc: Susan Hitchcock; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land Opposed to "big box". Approve limit size of retail developments. Jean Whitted 1449 Keagle Way Lodi, CA 95242 Get business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/loudclear.armx Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: DAVID PHILLIPS [katmandu@inreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:24 AM To: DAVID PHILLIPS; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Re: Size limits this message was sent but I did not sign my name; I apologize. Corene Phillips (Dave's wife) ----- Original Message ----- From: DAVID PHILLIPS To: hansen@lodi.aov; beckman@lodi.aov; howard@lodi.aov; land@lodi.aov; hitchcockQIodi.gov Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:02 AM Subject: Size limits dear council members, Since I cannot attend the meeting on wednesday night because I have 2 small children, I wanted to express my concerns regarding big box stores in Lodi. A small town atmosphere and a unique identity are valuable assets that enhance our quality of life, and make us a special place to live. Tourism is starting to thrive, bringing in revenue and positive publicity for our town. Tourists are not going to flock here to see large retail that looks the same as Fresno or Stockton. We also must maximize our sales tax revenue by attracting business that does not yet exist here, and encourage sales of taxable products. Adding more groceries to the mix will not create jobs or new revenue, and I fear it will create blight in other parts of our city. Therefore I ask you to please consider size limits on new retail, or at least have a review process for any stores over 75,000 square feet. If you can't come to a consensus then please put a 1 year moratorium on new large scale retail and let the citizens of Lodi vote on their future. 3/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Colleen Smith [csmith@paginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:49 AM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Limit the size of retail developments I am requesting that you vote NO ..... Protect the uniqueness of Lodi... LIMIT THE SIZE OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS! Thanks Colleen Smith 3/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Bryan Meier [fiveml990@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:18 AM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: size limit Please put a size limit on future retail stores. A super Wal Mart store in not really needed in Lodi. Lets keep Lodi beautiful. Thank you, Bryan Meier 3/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Bruce S Albers [meatman@lodinet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:09 AM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Walmart I have lived in Lodi all my life and have worked for a small business here for 33 years !!My boss pays $700 a month for my health insurance for my family walmart dont pay for there workers and what they offer makeing $8.00 and hour they cant afford it .If they would take 1% of their profit each year they could take care of their workers ,my insurance and yours would be alot less money !! By letting them bulid a big store you will be hurting alot of people in this town !! Please limit the size of the stores so I can keep my job and take care of my family .Thanks Bruce Albers 3/16/2004 Nature Page 1 of 2 Jennifer Perrin From: carol [kettols@lodinet.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:45 PM To: Larry Hansen Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Wednesday, March 17th Council Meeting Good Evening or Good Morning. It is my strong desire to see that a Wat*Mart Supercenter comes to our Town/City of Lodi. Let's face it, we can't go back to the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's so why are some of our Lodians bent on limiting the inevitable? We don't do the same things here any more. The town of Lodi isn't the same, regardless of whether there is a Supercenter here or not. We will. never see a newspaper of 3-5 pages again, downtown doesn't close up at 5:00 p.m. any longer and we are growing by leaps and bounds. I really can not understand why the leaders and some groups in Lodi like to keep things stirred up here. Isn't this a city of free enterprise? Do the owners of other retail shops/stores have the right to vote against free enterprise? How quickly they have forgotten the freedoms that we appreciate when we say the Pledge of Alliance and sing our National Anthem. We all stand in Union and give thanks together for our freedom(s) and that includes Wal*Mart shoppers and Associates who work there. We as employees of Wal*Mart sweat for our daily bread just like the rest of the world. This attack has been ruthless at times and not anywhere near truthful. The green postcard we received today in the mail must have cost some person(s) quite a bit of money and we found it quite an insult. Too bad the money it cost for that mailing wasn't donated to a family in need. It is written as though it comes from you, the City Council Members. Why not give Wal*Mart a chance to provide the City of Lodi additional jobs, a great place to shop and prove all these negative accusers wrong? Money will flow throughout the City when we most need it. There is much more good in having the Wat*Mart Supercenter in our town than what you are hearing from the Union Members and the "nay -sayers". This is our plea and our families plea. Wal*Mart is proud, not ashamed of what it can do and has done for the customers in offering great prices and convenience. Question is, do we want to be a poor town, overrun with our youth and other individuals not having anywhere to go except downtown for shopping and entertainment (which really can not accommodate everyone anyway, nor appeals to everyone; Do we want to be satisfied with fewer jobs available, while people move here in town and have to go elsewhere to make a living, and their monies are spent in other towns where attractions and shopping malls are abundant? Shopping should not be Limited to downtown, mervyns, target and K -Mart. Why is it that Wal*Mart is not allowed to grow? Downtown can be rennovated, other stores can relocate and grow, but Wal*Mart is a so- called "Giant" and is given resistance for doing so well in accommodating the needs of the customers. It is the number one retailer, due to what it has offered the communities over the years; Supercenters are doing well in many other states and exists, along side of and across the street with many other retailers. Their intent is not to put anyone out of business, but rather give the consumer their choice of shopping and to be competitive and stay competitive, not to be the only place to shop.as is the claim. 3/16/2004 Nature Page 2 of 2 Business owners need to get creative and provide other things in order to compete; What is wrong with that? Lakewood Mall Pharmacist said 40 years in the business and they are still growing strong. No one is putting them out of business. We need this Supercenter to satisfy the needs of the community. Please put this matter of resistance to rest and let the Supercenter come to town. Thank you. Carol Cash 3/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Hellwig [hellwig@lodinet.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 7:05 PM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Super -sized Walmart? Dear City Council Members, Haven't you heard? Super -sizing creates obesity! We don't need this. We have a lot of great small businesses in Lodi. I personally work for one of them. I don't even shop at Walmart because it's too big and impersonal. Have you tried getting any customer service help at one of this stores? I would like to see a size limit on future retail in Lodi. Being a small town was the appeal that brought me here. I'll gladly move if Lodi develops an "obesity" problem. Regards, Sherri Hellwig 3/16/2004 Jennifer Perrin From: Marcia Savage [ms1599@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:33 PM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: Wal-Mart Dear Mayor and Council Members: I urge you to read the article below from the Center for American Progress. A Wal-Mart Supercenter will have a profound effect on Lodi and its existing businesses. Big is not always better. Thank you for your time and tremendous effort in dealing with this controversy. Marcia Savage 316 E. Elm St. Lodi 339-1599 WAL-MART Looking to Dominate Across the country, communities are girding for battle against Wal-Mart domination as the company moves to add 220 new U.S. supercenters this year alone. According to Purdue University consumer sciences Professor Richard Fineberg, "[Wal -Mart's] plan is to dominate. They want to dominate the market. They want every consumer dollar spent to be spent in Wal-Mart." But Americans are fighting back. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle reports, citizens in the city of Gilroy, California, are standing up against the building of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter, citing concerns over the impact on wages and land use. A "coalition of small businesses, environmentalists, grocery store workers and residents" is urging the City Council slow the project down. Recently, communities across California were ripped apart when "70,000 grocery workers went on strike" after local grocery stores tried to slash wages and benefits to stay competitive with Wal-Mart. And now citizens in Michigan, Indiana, New York, Washington and Kansas are also fighting back. WELFARE WAGES: Wal-Mart is able to keep prices so low due to the rock -bottom wages it pays its non -unionized workers, coupled with a lack of proper benefits. And it's the American taxpayer who is stuck picking up the slack. The average supercenter worker makes $8.23 an hour. At that low wage, according to a new report put together by Rep. George Miller (D- CA), the average Wal-Mart store would leave taxpayers in a community stuck picking up about $420,750 per year, including in part about "$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches" for the kids of Wal-Mart families; 11$108,000 a year for children's health insurance costs; $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance; and $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families." As an example of the size of the problem, look to Georgia, where "Wal-Mart had more employees depending on state health -insurance assistance than any other major employer in the state." In California, a study showed that in 2002, Wal-Mart workers relied on 50% more taxpayer -funded health care per employee than those at other large retail stores, with taxpayers subsidizing more than $20 million worth of medical care. KILLING THE COMPETITION: When Wal-Mart comes to town, it drives smaller stores out of buisness. The new Wal-Mart Superstores, which carry groceries as well as retail items, have begun to take over the grocery market, causing stores to either slash wages and benefits in an attempt to compete or to close altogether. And, in many cases, the death of a grocery store leads to many other stores going under. For example, in many towns, the local grocery store serves to anchor small strip -mall developments. "If the anchor stores fail, the entire mall tends to follow suit," leaving Wal-Mart to dominate in sales. THE WAL-MART EVICTION: At an average of 200,000 square feet, the typical Wal-Mart Supercenter is the size of 100 three-bedroom homes. As a result, the stores displace existing homes and entire neighborhoods. Families who want to keep their homes "have few options against a corporation that plans to spend an estimated $12 billion this year on construction and renovation." MADE IN ... CHINA?: Sam Walton's biography was titled "Made in America." These days, "Made in China" would be a more accurate name. Far from the all-American image the corporation likes to portray, Wal - Mart's "imports from China have grown so large - $13 billion - that Wal-Mart is putting American factories out of business." "This is no longer a U.S. flagwaving company," Sen. Richard Durbin (D -IL) said. "This is a company which sells Chinese goods because they are cheap, because they [the Chinese] manipulate currency to the disadvantage of American producers." In an unusual move this week, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, actually "held its annual board meeting in China... with top managers taking a closer look at a 1 ma,�kst whose potential they think could rival the United States." CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION: The opposition to Wal-Mart stretches all the way to Capitol Hill. "Rep. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, vows that he will never shop at a Wal-Mart. Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said he could 'go on for a few hours' about why he doesn't like Wal-Mart. And Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, vows that if his party ever regains control of Congress, 'you bet there will be hearings on Wal-Mart."' In fact, Miller recently released a report on the devastation left in Wal -Mart's wake, titled "Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart." It outlines the ways "Wal -Mart's wages and benefits are so low that it forces workers to turn to public assistance to make ends meet, and thereby forces costs onto taxpayers both nationwide and locally." WAL-MART BUYS INFLUENCE: In order to shore up federal support, however, Wal-Mart is using its deep pockets. According to a study by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, Wal-Mart is now the second highest contributor to the 2004 elections, having already contributed more than $1 million to federal candidates. Last year, Wal-Mart didn't even rank in the top 100. "Wal -Mart's rise is significant because of the impact it might have on congressional debates about health care, labor and other hot -button regulatory issues," says Larry Noble, the Center's executive director. "They're clearly making a move," he says. Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: mary miller [valley embroidery@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:04 PM To: Larry Hansen Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: No Big Boxes Hello, My name is Lindsey Miller, I am 15 years old and have been living in Lodi for 15 years, and have always enjoyed it. I am against Big Boxes in Lodi, like many other Lodians. Lodi is a very special city. We have many things that other cities and towns do not have these days such as Lodi Lake, open space, many parks and churches, and the beautiful downtown. All of these things add to the character of this lovely town. We already have a Wal-Mart, KMart, Target, and soon-to-be Lowe's. We don't need anymore Big Boxes. If we continue building these stores we will put out the small businesses in town. These stores offer low-wage jobs, and in the long run don't do a lot to contribute to the success of the community. Only to the success of their own store. Big Box stores will turn our community into every other city in the area. They will bring more people, more traffic, more pollution and it will decrease the community aspect that we have here. The Kettleman part of Lodi is already busy enough, we don't need to add more to it by building a SUPER Wal-Mart. There are already two grocery stores across the street from the opposed site of the SUPER Wal-Mart, and another one down the street (Raley's), why do we need another one inside of a wal- Mart? If anything, my personal opinion is to build onto the already exicisting Wal-Mart. There is plenty of unused parking lot. I say, build onto the current site or leave it how it is. Also, what would the HUGE empty Wal-Mart be if they built a new one across the street? Bottom Line, we DON'T need it! Lodi is the kind of city that doesn't need flashy chain stores, or popular -at -the -time discount stores to attract people and we Lodians know that. The reason we're doing this is because we love this town teh way it is. 3/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Terry ITCope@softcom.net] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 6:07 PM To: Larry Hansen Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Put me down as a vote AGAINST the big box stores Way too many added cars on our roads and intersections- including the worsening of air quality Smaller, local businesses put out of business and the resulting empty buildings I have a large concern for our city and quality of life we moved here for. Let's have quality, not quantity. Terry Cope 3/16/2004 Jennifer Perrin From: Ken Kramlich [kenneth@wgcnet.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:49 PM To: John Beckman; Keith Land; Larry Hansen; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard Subject: Wal-Mart I urge you to approve the construction of the new Super center Wal-Mart. It seem every time something new comes to town there people that predict nothing but gloom and doom. We had people complain when Rallies and Food -4 -less came to town. All the grocery stores would go broke, now we here the same thing again. So I urge you to approve this development Lodi needs to grow with the times. They help the community in many ways. They have given grants to the Veterans and other organizations. Thank -you. Ken & Darlene Kramlich 1233 Glenhurst Dr Lodi, Ca. 95240 1 Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Perrin From: Jennifer Perrin Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:51 PM To: 'Hayley Hummel'; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: size limit on future retail in Lodi Dear Hayley Jackson: This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) City Attorney, and 3) Community Development. Thank you for expressing your views. /s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message ----- From: Hayley Hummel [mailto:JackHumm@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:42 PM To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock Subject: size limit on future retail in Lodi To whom it may concern: I am currently employed by Albertsons where we are protected by the local 588 Union. This is something I am very prideful in having on my side. With the increase in Big box stores this may wreck what I have been working for these past 7 years!!! Please put a size limit on any new department stores coming to Lodi. We really are doing fine just the way we are... Don't you agree. Thank you for your time, and any questions regarding give me a call at 339-9395. Sincerely, Hayley Jackson a proud Lodi Citizen. 3/17/2004 ieeiel STEEEEE, EEVITT & WEISS A Profeulonal Cmporaflw r7 MEMORANDUM 3 � 3 TO: City Clerk FROM: Judy V. Davidoff DATE: March 17, 2004 RE: March 17, 2004 City Council Meeting Agenda Item G-3 - Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments Please include the attached letter as part of the record for the City Council's consideration of Agenda Item G-3 - Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments. This letter was submitted as part of the Planning Commission's consideration of this item. iee el STEEEEE, EEVITT & WEISS A Professional Corporation February 10, 2004 16982 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission City of Lodi 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95242 Re: Restrictions on Size of Retail Uses in the Proposed Large Scale Retail Design Guidelines Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commissioners: On Wednesday February 11, 2004, the City of Lodi ("City" or "Lodi") Planning Commission will further consider proposed Design Standards for Large Scale Retail Establishments ("Design Standards"), The Planning Commission first considered the Design Standards at its January 28, 2003 meeting, at which time it decided further deliberation was needed and directed the Planning Department to review and, as needed, revise the proposed Design Standards. One of the revisions discussed was to include a size restriction on all future retail projects. On behalf of our client, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., we submit this letter to address the serious concerns raised by the proposed size restriction. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Community Development Director's recommendation and urge the Planning Commission not to include a size restriction on retail developments in the Design Standards. A restriction on the size of retail uses, either as a ban or by requiring a use permit, is a significant change from Lodi's existing land use policy. Lodi has engaged in an extensive and lengthy planning process to determine the appropriate location for large-scale retail within the community. In particular, Lodi has determined that large-scale retail is an appropriate use in the Four Corners area. Consistent with that prior planning decision, Lodi has already approved a Target and Lowe's in that area. During this planning process, Lodi never considered a ban on, or requiring a conditional use permit for, retail uses over a certain size. In fact, neither the General Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance includes any limitation on the size of retail use. To impose a restriction now on the size of retail uses would be inconsistent with past planning efforts for the Four Corners area. In addition to being contrary to Lodi's history of planning, the proposed restriction on the size of retail uses raises serious questions that must be considered and :addressed before any such restriction is adopted. The City has not conducted, to our knowledge, One Emharcaeem Center, 30111 Floor, San Francisca, California 94111-3719 • Phone: (415) 788-0900 • Fax: (415) 788-2019 Sac Francisco, CA Los Angeles. CA Slamhxc, CT w steefelxonn Planning Commission February 10, 2004 Page T« o any studies or analysis on the impact of such a restriction. Some of the key items the City must consider include the following: • Restricting the size of retail uses presents environmental impacts which require review under CEQA; • Restricting retail development will have significant negative economic impacts on the City; • A maximum size restriction for retail buildings is inconsistent with Lodi's extensive planning efforts, especially in the Four Corners area; • ExIsting large-scale retail stores in Lodi would become non -conforming uses and buildings and could not expand or significantly change; • Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are needed to restrict the size of retail uses in Lodi; and • A ban on certain size uses limits the City's discretion for future development. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject any proposed size restriction on retail uses. Adopting a "ban" or requiring a conditional use permit on certain retail uses is not the answer and does little more than limit the City's discretion with regard to future uses and negatively impact the economic retail base from Lodi. However, if the Planning Commission desires to further consider this issue, it must separate this issue from the proposed Design Standards and conduct further study. The size limitation is not related to architectural design issues. The Planning Commission must conduct a complete and thorough analysis of the environmental, planning and economic impacts of the proposed restriction before formally considering its adoption. A. Restricting the Size of Retail Uses Requires Review Under CEQA. Any restriction on the size of retail uses would require review under CEQA. CEQA applies to discretionary projects approved by public agencies. See Public Res. Code sec. 21080(a). Changes to land use policy, including General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, are discretionary actions and deemed "projects" under CEQA. See id at 15378(a)(1). They require CEQA review because they have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal.3d 263, 277- 2790975). Here, evidence exists to support an assertion that a restriction on retailers of a certain size may cause a significant environmental impact. Past studies have shown that limiting Planning Commission February 10, 2004 Page Three retail development to smaller users generates more traffic than associated with a single large- scale retail tenant since residents are forced to make several trips for their goods instead of one single trip. Residents also are forced to travel further distances, outside the jurisdiction, to shop at the large-scale retailer, thereby exacerbating traffic and air quality impacts. Accordingly, restricting the size of retail uses may have significant environmental impacts which require full review and analysis under CEQA. B. Adopting a Size Restriction on Retail Uses is Inconsistent with Lodi's Planning Efforts, Requires Changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and Creates Unintended Planning Impacts. Restricting the size of retail uses in Lodi could have several significant impacts on the City and existing large-scale retail users that have not been studied or analyzed. Adopting such a provision without adequately considering all potential ramifications would be a mistake and could violate California law. The City has not prepared any studies or evaluated the impact of banning or requiring a conditional use permit for large-scale retail stores over a certain square footage. Absent this analysis, adopting such a maximum size restriction could be seen as arbitrary, capricious, wholly lacking in evidentiary support and easily subject to legal challenge. In particular, if it can be shown the provision is aimed at a particular project or retailer, it is subject to challenge on equal protection grounds. It is an abuse of discretion for the City to enact legislation that is intended to discriminate. See Friends of Davis v. City of Davis, 83 Cal.App.4`b 1004, 1013 (2000). Existing Large -Scale Retail Stores Would Become Non -Conforming Buildings and Could be Forced to Relocate Outside the City. Lodi presently has several large-scale retail stores over 100,000 square feet, including, but not limited to, Target, Lowe's (under construction), K -Mart and Wal-Mart. If a maximum size restriction were adopted, either a ban or a conditional use requirement, these stores would become nonconforming buildings under the Lodi Zoning Ordinance, which means their ability to repair, restore or make any additions or alterations to the buildings would be severely limited. The stores also would either be unable to expand or severely restricted from expanding, thereby significantly impairing their ability to conduct business within the City limits. Furthermore, since the Lowe's is not yet constructed, it is unclear how this change in zoning regulation would affect its existing entitlement. As a result, when the existing large-scale retail stores outgrow their current buildings, seek to update, modernize or expand their operations, they will be forced to locate outside the City limits. The City will then be left with large empty non -conforming buildings that will be difficult, if not impossible to re -tenant. The City also will lose a significant source of tax revenue and is likely to see an increase in sales tax leakage as consumers take their dollars and spend them at retail establishments outside the City. Planning Commission February 10, 2004 Page Four General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments are Needed to Restrict the Size of Retail Uses in Lodi. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance dictate development within the City. They are adopted as legislative acts and regulate the size, scale and intensity of development. In fact, the General Plan is essentially the "constitution" of land use identifying the building density and intensity recommended for the various districts. See Cal. Gov't Code sec. 65302(a). These density's and intensity's cannot be changed without a formal amendment to the General Plan. See also Lesher Communications. Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531, 540-541 (1990). Imposing a maximum size restriction of retail uses, either by ban or by conditional use permit requirements, would be a restriction on the intensity of land use in the commercial areas of Lodi. It is not, like the changes proposed under the Design Standard, merely a clarification of the general policies included in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance regarding design, landscaping, parking, etc. It is a change in land use policy that, if adopted, would create inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, any such restriction can only be adopted as an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance — it cannot be adopted as part of the Design Standards. 3. A Size Restriction on Retail Uses Contradicts Lodi's Over 9 Years of Planning for Large -Scale Retail Projects. Lodi is a very forward thinking city and began over 9 years ago planning for large-scale retail projects. Lodi undertook a planning process to evaluate the impact of large- scale retail projects and determine where in the City these types of projects should be located. Based on the findings, Lodi determined that large-scale retail projects should be located in the Four Comers area. Consistent with that planning effort, three of the four intersections in the Four Corners area have been developed with large-scale retail projects such as Target, K -Mart, Lowe's and Wal-Mart. Development of the last comer, as proposed by the Browman Development Company, Inc. ("Browman Development"), a long-time Lodi property owner and developer, is consistent with the planning for this area. Any proposed restriction on the size of retail uses would contradict and be inconsistent with the City's long-range planning efforts. Changing the rules this late in the game also is fundamentally unfair to property owners and developers who, in good faith, have been processing applications for large-scale retail with the City over the past several years. Adopting a maximum size restriction on retail development will severely limit the City's discretion with regard to future development. Size limitations or bans on certain types of development are not good planning tools. They are not flexible and prevent good land use and city planning. Other tools exist besides limitations and bans to address the impacts created by the large-scale retailers. Instead of restricting these uses, the City should consider how to manage and/or minimize their impacts and ensure they contribute, not detract from, the community character of Lodi. Planning Commission February 10, 2004 Page Five C. Lodi Has Not Analyzed the Fiscal Impacts of Restricting Large -Retail Users. Imposing a maximum size limitation on retail building within Lodi will have significant negative economic impacts on the City that need to be analyzed and considered. Most importantly, the size restriction will prevent large-scale retail users from locating within the City. This, in turn, will likely preclude other smaller retailers from locating in Lodi, since these smaller businesses rely on the traffic generated by the large-scale retailer for a significant amount of their business and can only locate in areas, or shopping centers, with those larger retailers. These retailers are likely to locate just outside of Lodi's jurisdiction in cities and counties where they are permitted and where it is easier to develop. When this occurs, Lodi will lose the significant tax revenue generated by large-scale retailers and the contributions they make to various public works improvements and special projects. Lodi also will likely see a decrease in tax revenue from an increase in retail sales leakage as consumers take their money and spend it on retail outside the City. Lodi is already experiencing significant retail sales leakage to other jurisdictions. Lodi also should be concerned about losing existing large-scale retailers. If Lodi adopts a maximum size limit for retail buildings or complicated design guidelines, when these large-scale retailers decide to relocate, or need to expand, they will leave Lodi. These relocations and expansions may not occur for several years, but they will occur and by passing a ban or onerous restrictions on development Lodi will essentially be driving them from the City. Accordingly, before adopting a ban or complicated design guidelines, Lodi should carefully consider their economic and fiscal impacts. For the reasons stated above, we strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject any attempt to impose a maximum building size limitation on retail stores. Sincerely, Judy V. Davidoff cc: Konrad Bartlam, Community Development Director City Attorney Darryl Browman. Browman Development 16982:6377225.4 Parkin4Ratio Books Parking Ratio Barnes & Noble 5 5 Borden, Inc. 5 Tower Books bildr earning Centers 10 ns- Babies R Us Disney Store 5.5 Kids R Us 7.5 Toys R Us Stores Department Gottschalks 5.7 Kohl's Sears 5 Domestic Bed Bath & Beyond 7.5 Michaels Arts & Crafts 5 Strouds Stores 5 Dmg Longs Drug Store 5.5 Rite Aid 5.5 Walgreens Electronics Appliances 6 - Best Buy 5.5 Circuit City 5 Comp USA 5 Fry's Electronics 5 Good Guys Food Restaurants 20 Fat - Applebee's 9.33 Chili's Claim Jumper 15. Del Taco 15 Elephant Bar II Fornaio 9 In N Out Burger Jamba Juice Johnny Carino 10 Johnny Rockets Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Macaroni Grill 15 Mimi's Cafe 18 Olive Garden On the Border Panera PF Changs China Bistro 13 Pizza Hut 19 Red Lobster Red Robin 11 Round Table Pizza Rubio's Baja Grill Starbucks Coffee Company 18 TGI Fridays 10 Two Bell Tony Roma's 12812004 12:21 PM 5 5 5.17 5 5 5 5 5.4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.25 5 Furniture Stores Cost Plus Lamps Plus Pier 1 Imports Pottery Bam Restoration Hardware William Sonoma Z Gallerie 24 Hour Fitness Bally's Total Fitness Home Improvement Home Depot Marker Albertsons Fleming Companies Raley's Ralphs-Food 4 Less Safeway Trader Joe's Pet_Sto Petco PetsMart cgfr Goods Burlington Coat Factory Fashion Bug Gap Men's Warehouse Old Navy Ross Dress for Less Sporting Good Copeland's Sports R.E.I Sportmart/Gart Sports Wholesale Clubs Costco Sam's Club BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. Development Leasing Management March 17, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Honorable Mayor Larry D. Hansen and Members of the City Council City of Lodi Lodi, California 95241-1910 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Re: Existine Concerns - Design Guidelines Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to meet with us and review our project and the proposed Design Guidelines. As promised, please find a short memo detailing a few remaining concerns relating to the Design Guidelines for your consideration. • Big Box Size Limitation: 100,000sf maximum building size (former §17.58.21) • 50% Parking Maximum in the front (§ 17.5 8.112) • Entrances on two sides for buildings greater than 25,000sf (§ 17.5 8.102) • Flexibility to allow minor modifications/deviations from the Design Guidelines to be reviewed by the Community Development Director for approval or denial. • Parking stall flexibility with a change of use. 1. 100,00sf Maximum Building Size A Design Criteria should focus on what a building looks like and not to prohibit retailers from coming into a community. A Size limitation is not currently in the Design Guidelines but has been a subject of continued discussion. A limitation of 100,000 square feet if adopted 12 years ago, would prohibit every anchor store operating and under construction at Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane; Target (116,000 SF), Wal Mart (119,000 SF), Lowes (165,000 SF with garden center). Additionally, this restriction in the future will prohibit Costco (141,000 SF), Macy's (150-300,000 SF), Nordstrom, Bloomingdales (150 -320,000 SF), Ikea Furniture (350,000 SF), Bass Pro Shop, Cabela's Outdoor Equipment and Sporting Goods (225-250,000 SF) from locating within Lodi. Further, a size restriction would send a negative message to both the retail and development community that Lodi is anti -business, leading those retailers to flock to neighboring, perceived more retail friendly cities like Stockton and Elk Grove creating further leakage of sales and business from Lodi. 100 SWAN WAY, SUITE 206, OAKLAND, CA 94621-1459 • (510) 430-9701 FAX: (510) 430-9761 Honorable Mayor Larry D. Hansen and Members of the City Council City of Lodi March 17, 2004 Page 2 2. 50% Parking Maximum in the front Customers visiting a shopping center desire convenient parking as close to the front entrance of a store as possible. The criteria would require a minimum of 50% of the parking within a center to be provided away from the store entrance, in the rear of the building or along the sides making it inconvenient for most customers especially mothers with children and the aged. A more reasonable request is that no more than 75% of the parking be located in the front of the store. Most retail projects in Lodi today and within San Joaquin County provide for the majority of the parking field to be provided near the store entrance. Consistent with Item 1 above, this will hinder Lodi from attracting future quality retailers who are accustomed to providing convenient parking to their customers. 3. Multiple Entrances (store entrances required on two sides of a building) Multiple entrance requirements are consistent with the super regional malls like Tracy Mall in Tracy. Very few retailers have entrances on two different sides of a building, and all the major retailers at the intersection (Target, Wal Mart, JC Penney, Marshalls, Staples, Big 5, Food 4 Less, Safeway) have their entrance(s) facing their primary parking field. For almost all retailers, including bookstores, electronics stores, etc., it will create costly and inefficient additional security and operational issues and most likely make the retailer pass on Lodi as this requirement significantly deviates from their standard store layouts which they are comfortable with. 4. Provide a mechanism in the Design Guidelines to allow the Planning Director the flexibility to approve minor modification requests to the Design Guidelines rather than the California Variance process. The Fort Collins Design Criteria (the model for the Lodi Criteria) provides the Planning Director the right to allow alternative Design Solution if (1) Strict application results in undo hardship or (2) If the alternative meets or exceeds design objectives equally well or better then would compliance. The Lodi Criteria includes a variance process. In California the variance process is very difficult to achieve and would hinder alternative design solutions which could meet or exceed the C17tGIlit'5 9bjgg&g5 but ale not fully set forth in the Desitin Criteria. The Desir Guidelines are planning related items and the Planning Director should have the ability to allow minor modifications to the guidelines when he determines that a hardship case or that the alternatives proposed design meets or exceeds the spirit of the Design Criteria after considering the unique aspects of the particular property. The Planning Director's determination on a guideline if not agreed to by the applicant or the public could be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council. 5. Create Parking standard flexibility for outparcel buildings or when there is a change of use in an outparcel building. Under the Guidelines retail space is allowed a maximum of 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building and restaurant space is allowed up to 15 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building. Retail and restaurant business leases are typically short term in length and turn over every 3, 5 or 7 Honorable Mayor Larry D. Hansen and Members of the City Council City of Lodi March 17, 2004 Page 3 years. If a restaurant tenant leaves a building, a provision needs to be inserted allowing an owner the flexibility to replace that tenant with any tenant including a bank, or other retail user, without the requirement to eliminate the parking intended for the previous restaurant tenant. Under the guidelines, if a retail tenant had interest in the former restaurant space, the retail tenant could not occupy the space or the previous additional restaurant parking (eg in excess of 5 per 1,000 sq. ft.) would need to be eliminated creating a large economic burden. Further that same space now intended for a retail tenant could revert back to a restaurant tenant in the future causing an additional economic hardship with the need to re -construct the parking field to accommodate the potential future restaurant tenant. Additionally, outparcel multi -tenant buildings are rarely pre- leased 100% before construction and an owner needs the flexibility under the guidelines to provide adequate parking for future tenant uses including both restaurant and retail uses. I would suggest in those cases unleased outparcel spaces be allowed to build 10 stalls per 1,000 square feet space to provide restaurant flexibility in the future. V ,sincerely y urs, Darryl Browr#n President OF COMMERCE March 17, 2004 TO: Mayor Hansen & City Council, Planning Commission & City Planning Department FR: Pat Patrick, President / CEO Lodi Chamber On Behalf of the Government Relations Committee & The Chamber Board of Directors RE: Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments Chapter 17.58 For several months, volunteer leadership and local business leaders of the Lodi Chamber have been weighing the issue of revised design standards for large retail establishments. Developers, small business owners and various community members, have been heard. At our last meeting Mr. Bartlam was on hand for input and questions. The Chamber advocates for business rights to enter into commerce and earn a profit. A "business -friendly environment is an integral component to this formula. At the same time we want to defend the economic health and aesthetic quality of Lodi. Therefore, the Chamber Board of Directors and The Government Relations Committee both unanimously support the design standards as submitted to you by the Planning Commission. We feel these standards will provide adequate safeguards to protect aesthetics without unduly burdening business. Further, these standards, in the Chamber's opinion, negate the need for a square foot limitation. Each new building project should be evaluated on its own merits, value and scale through the process in place. <"e pectf y, at Patrick, President / CEO 35 South School Street • Lodi. California 95240 • Telephone: 209.367.7840 • Fax 209.334.0528 • www,lodichamber.com