When a developer says he can attract 10 new retail stores to Davis, especially when new retail has been hard to come by lately, it would seem the city would do everything it could to help.

But if that same developer said that to bring those businesses in, the city would need to take action that essentially could overturn one of the most controversial votes ever to take place there, perhaps it’s understandable why planners would hesitate.

And hesitate the Davis Planning Commission did at its meeting Wednesday.

Asked by city staff to make a recommendation to the City Council on changing the development agreement for the Second Street Crossing — better known as Target — the commission punted.

The group was not comfortable making what some members called a policy decision, rather than a simple planning decision.

Buzz Oates Construction, the land owner, has proposed amending the size restrictions on the four ancillary pad sites on the property included in the Measure K vote back in 2006, which were dedicated for additional retail uses. The site is along Second Street just west of Mace Boulevard.

The developer believes the restrictions, which mainly allow for only larger retailers, are keeping out new “leaner and meaner” businesses.

“We’re trying to make a bigger window of users that can come to this property. Right now it’s relatively tight,” said Kevin Ramos of Ramco Enterprises Inc., which has partnered with Oates on the project.

But the commission eventually voted 3-2 to ask the council to provide direction on what it sees as the Planning Commission’s role in this issue, especially if its decision reversed the 2006 vote of the people.

“I’m confused at this point why this is coming to us first,” said commission chairman Rob Hofmann.

“The applicant mentioned emotionally charged political issues in a land-use decision and our role as the Planning Commission, and I guess in my mind that kind of hits it on the head: This isn’t, in my mind, strictly a land-use Planning Commission-level decision.”

Since Oates has taken over the project, it has received a commitment from T.J. Maxx to move into the 25,000-square-foot pad “C” at the far northeast corner of the site.

The discount fashion retailer has said, however, that it will move in only if the restrictions on the other sites are changed to accommodate other businesses.

Under the development agreement, community retail stores such as appliance, department, housewares, home furnishings, office supplies or electronics stores can only be 10,000 square feet or larger. Apparel retail stores must be 8,000 square feet or larger.

If T.J. Maxx opened in the 25,000-square-foot pad, only two 7,500-square-foot and one 6,000-square-foot parcels would remain, meaning neither a second community retail store nor an apparel store could occupy any of the remaining space.

Oates has proposed reducing the size restrictions on community retail stores from 10,000 square feet to 4,000 and on apparel stores from 8,000 square feet to 4,000 to accommodate smaller retailers.

In fact, after TJ Maxx, the owners have received letters of intent from Vitamin Shoppe, an undisclosed cell phone retailer and an undisclosed quick-serve restaurant (not fast food).

Oates’ representatives also said Wednesday they believe they are close to striking deals with retailers of footwear, bedding, furniture, pet supplies and apparel.

But as these types of stores range in size from about 1,000 to 5,000 square feet, the restrictions on the sites don’t currently permit the stores from moving in.

If the restrictions were lifted, Oates believes it could finally fill the vacant spaces.

“I think what’s hurting downtown is the parking and the high rents, I think that’s what’s hurting the retail,” said commissioner Marilee Hanson. “This site has been sitting fallow for a long time. It’s just Target sitting down there; they are obviously having a hard time marketing these pads.”

“With their regional drawing power, ease of access, abundance of parking, such sites have proved an equally attractive location for many smaller retailers, those who might otherwise fit well and might opt for a more urban location,” Fleeman said. “It was for these reasons that Measure K was constructed in the manner it was: to provide some measure of relief to downtown retail uses.”

City staff, who endorse the project proposal, contend that voter approval would not be needed to alter the site restrictions.

Comments

comments