Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 9, 2015 <br />Page 11 of 17 <br />one of the policies and that is economic development, policy 2.1. That states that the City <br />should strive to achieve complementary land uses that promote an economically healthy <br />community. Here, the draft plan is geared toward creating competing, not complementary, <br />uses. Albertsons recognizes that there is a balancing act between land uses. It is necessary to <br />create a strong and vibrant community, now and in the years to come. Albertsons wants to <br />ensure the City's economic vitality as well. For this reason, we urge you to be mindful of <br />businesses that are currently there. In its current form, the draft plan fails to identify the <br />business or businesses that will operate in that Sam's Club property but, the draft plan is very <br />specific about the tools that it seeks, namely, the elimination of planned use covenants that <br />have been there for years. These types of restrictions and covenants are commonplace in <br />developments and businesses have a right to expect that they will be enforced and not taken by <br />governmental entities. When Albertsons entered the property years ago, it had the reasonable <br />expectation that its covenant that would prohibit a grocery store from being located immediately <br />adjacent to its property would not be taken by the government. The Staff apparently believes <br />that two groceries are appropriate for this area or they want to see a store other than Albertsons <br />in this space. We suggest, for that reason, that this draft plan is inconsistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan for the City. That is not the only concern that Albertsons has. The way <br />that this draft plan was initiated and has progressed is a bit perplexing. This property was <br />purchased for about $4 million in January 2014. Shortly after acquiring the property, the owners <br />came to the Staff in the City and said, "we need some help with these restrictive covenants". It <br />is interesting that if you go back and read the blight study, one of the factors that was identified <br />was that the property can't be sold because of the restrictive covenants. That blight study was <br />authored in mid 2014 and the property had just sold a few months before. We would suggest <br />that that property clearly is marketable because the owner bought it. Not only did the owner buy <br />it with existing restrictions, but the seller imposed additional restrictions. I think the limitation <br />generally speaking is no big box retail. The purchaser of the property negotiated the right to buy <br />out that restriction for a price. Now the owner wants the government to eliminate that restriction. <br />We have some concerns about the way that the plan has progressed. We certainly understand <br />that maybe there is a view that we are just setting the stage and we will allow things to happen <br />in the future. Our question and concern is, what tools are you going to authorize the future <br />development to have at their disposal? We suggest that allowing elimination of all restrictive <br />uses including those that have been around for years and that Albertsons negotiated and paid <br />for should not be eliminated. We think that is an improper use and we also submit respectfully <br />that it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Complementary not competing <br />businesses. We thank you for your time. <br />Interim Questions: <br />Russell asks, just to be clear, this gives the City the ability to reach back and eliminate <br />agreements that have been made between two other parties or sometimes two or three parties <br />previously, and basically void those in the interest of economic development in this area, is that <br />right? <br />DeJong says it would not be for economic development, but would be to address the blighting <br />factors. <br />Russell says at the outset, I don't think we should be negotiating elements of this plan on the fly, <br />because whenever we do that, it ends in tears for everybody basically, but I do have some <br />questions. How has Albertsons or representatives of Albertsons been involved in the <br />development of the plan today? There was an informational meeting, I understand, earlier this <br />week. Have there been ongoing discussions, requests for input, or advice? <br />Bergman says there have been attempts to get these parties to talk. We are scheduled to meet <br />in the near term future, but with regard to this specific plan and the elimination of the use <br />