Item 2A - Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

discussing regulation. He said that the discussion of Wal-Mart referred to a super center, which was traditionally a mass merchandiser that expanded to add food service to its use. He said that a typical Wal- Mart or Target would include 150,000 to 160,000 square feet and the recent application received from Wal- Mart was for the addition of 60,000 square feet to the existing center. He said that summary included a breakdown of public comments received on the Wal-Mart expansion sorted by areas of complaint: competition with local business, wages and business practices, and land use-related issues of traffic and aesthetics. Mr. Coyle pointed out the potential consequences that should be considered if the solution to the issue was a code amendment: · The effect of creating a non-conformity for all retail buildings over 50,000 square feet. · The effect of a size limitation associated with nodal development on a city-wide application. · An absence of competition for uses and development in current in place as a result of a size limita- tion. · The precluding of redevelopment of existing sites if there is a size limitation. · The relationship of a square footage limitation to the use of internal retail space. Mr. Coyle concluded his remarks with the comment that staff recommended no action unless there were compelling reasons why a size limitation would respond to the concerns associated with ;;big box" retailing. Ms. Taylor expressed her disappointment that information was not provided about ordinances that existed in other cities relating to ;;big box" retail. She said her intent in raising the issue was to protect local business, local workers, and downtown and to address issues such as transportation. She said a moratorium on ;;big box" stores was a starting point while the City considered options such as imposing conditions relating to environment, transportation, living wage, local ownership and decision-makers, and the consequences of abandoning a facility. She said the present application would have negative effects on the transportation infrastructure and wetlands and hoped it could be stopped while the council examined regulation options. Mr. Kelly said that while the problem had land use aspects, it was ultimately an economic development policy and economic health issue. He stated that it was necessary to develop mechanisms for what type of economic development would provide the most net positive gain to the community and noted that studies had identified a net negative effect on local businesses of many ;;big box" stores; particularly the percent of dollars spent that left the community immediately. He said other issues were the impact on the local labor pool, public subsidies for employees, and efficient or inefficient use of commercial land. He commented that many other communities had either banned or restricted ;;big box" retail. He did not think that a square footage limitation was the only solution and gave as examples regulations that applied only to chains or formula business and an impact analysis review of certain types of businesses. Mr. Meisner said that ultimately residents made the difference by where they shopped and agreed that the council needed to address the issue. He asked for additional information on how other communities had approached the problem as well as a legal analysis of how those approaches and the ones discussed by the council would work under Oregon law and judicial system. He said the issue was not one of land use and size. Mr. Pap6 remarked that land use and aesthetics issues should be separated from business operational issues, which were much more complex. He expressed concern with the idea of the City trying to manipulate the marketplace and agreed with Mr. Meisner that shoppers would ultimately make the decision. He said that if MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 6 Work Session