Planning Commission Subcommittee on Revisions to Big Box Regulations |
Frank Bangs
|
|
Re: |
Proposed summary of Big Box Revision issues |
|
Purpose. What land use planning objectives are the big box regulations intended to serve?
Protect immediately adjacent, less intensive uses from negative uncompensated impacts of big box uses.
Protect the larger community from negative uncompensated impacts of big box uses.
Protect major unionized grocery chains from competition by non-union big box retailers?
Protect neighborhood scale retail uses from competition by big box retailers with community-wide market areas?
Applicability. To what large retail uses should the big box regulations apply?
Single stores or any agglomeration of stores over a specific size?
Whether single stores or shopping centers, where is the regulatory threshold? 100,000 square feet?
Should we distinguish between:
Development of vacant sites versus redevelopment of existing sites?
Sites predominantly surrounded by industrial or commercial uses versus residential?
As to functional and aesthetic concerns (see D.3 and .4 below), is there any reason to distinguish between big boxes as currently defined and any commercial use over, say, 50,000 square feet?
Process. How is a decision made on a big box approval?
What approaches, running from “as of right” to “fully discretionary legislative decision,” should be used?
Can differential procedures be followed; i.e., simpler process for proposals which meet threshold criteria or are uncontroversial?
What is the role of the City's Design Review Board in the big box review process? Should its membership be diversified?
Can the process be simplified? Shortened? Made less costly?
How can neighborhood concerns and opinions be solicited and accommodated?
How can we improve enforcement after approval?
Design Standards.
What are the big box impacts on neighborhood and community uses that design standards should address?
Traffic.
Noise.
Odors.
Light pollution.
Store operations (e.g., hours of operation, deliveries).
Crime (any evidence?).
Fire safety (any evidence?).
What is the most effective way to address these impacts?
Performance standards?
Specification standards?
Some tiered combination of standards; i.e., minimum specification standard, which can be reduced based on compliance with performance criteria?
Project functionality - How does the site function internally so as to reduce external impacts, enhance the customer experience and facilitate transit use?
Landscaping.
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
Perimeter buffers.
Screening of functions: loading, trash collection, outdoor storage.
Aesthetic standards - How do we improve how the big box looks in the context of surrounding development? Can those standards be less vague, less susceptible to subjective interpretation?
Reducing the massiveness, visual impact of building façades.
Customer amenities (i.e., plazas, fountains, art).
FSB/sdl
Memorandum May 1, 2002 Page 3
|
|
Tucson |
122301.2
Memorandum May 1, 2002
To |
From |
Tucson |
122301.2
Lewis
AND
Roca
LLP
L A W Y E R S
Lewis
AND
Roca
LLP
L A W Y E R S