Big Box Review Committee Report
Introduction
The Big Box Review Committee was formed to further explore the ideas suggested by
the Planning Commission in their report “Seeking Solutions to Big Box Blight”. The
Team consists of members of the private and public sector (See Appendix A). In January
2002, the Committee hosted a Community Stakeholders meeting to get input on the
Committee’s work and other ideas from the community. Over 100 people representing
developers, neighborhoods and businesses attended this meeting. The Interim Report
was also presented to, and input received from organizations involved in revitalizing the
City’s business corridors, such as Freedom Drive Development Association and the
Charlotte East Area Council.
In April 2002, the Committee presented an Interim Report to update elected officials on
the progress of the Big Box Committee, and to give the elected officials a sense for the
direction the Committee is going. The Interim Report focused on currently vacant big
boxes. This report refines those recommendations and makes recommendations on
preventing future big boxes from becoming vacant.
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The City of Charlotte needs to continue to fund market studies of
areas impacted by vacant big boxes to determine the market for reuse of the building or
redevelopment of the site, including redevelopment for residential uses. These studies
cost approximately $25,000 on average. The City also needs to use these studies to
proactively seek retailers and developers to fill market niches identified by the studies.
Recommendation 2: The City of Charlotte needs to better understand the implications for
vacant big boxes, and existing inner city big boxes, of rezoning additional land on the
fringe of the urban area for big box retail. Staff and City Council when making rezoning
decisions for significant new retail on the fringe should review the market analysis done
under recommendation #1, to the extent that it is relevant. This would be one of many
factors considered in making a rezoning recommendation and decision.
Recommendation 3: The City of Charlotte needs to continue its Communities Within a
City strategy and Neighborhood Improvement Capital Improvement Program. These are
both aimed at sustaining and rebuilding inner city neighborhoods, which in turn makes
for healthier markets and attracts retailers. Creating “rooftops” in these communities
through infill housing and affordable housing programs will help make these areas
attractive for retailers and help fill vacant big boxes.
1
Recommendation 4: The City of Charlotte needs to increase the amount of Façade and
Infrastructure Grants available for vacant big boxes. Both of these programs are
currently capped at $10,000, which is insignificant considering the costs of updating and
up fitting a vacant big box. The estimated cost of basic improvements to a 200-foot long
grocery store façade is $84,000. The current City programs would provide 12% of just
the facade cost.
Recommendation 5: The City of Charlotte needs to find other tools to assist developers
financially in the up fitting of their vacant big boxes. The City may wish to target their
assistance to providing infrastructure improvements, such as a grid street system, that will
provide additional redevelopment opportunities in the future. Possibilities funding
sources include: Section 108 Loans, New Market Tax Credits, and a revised Business
Investment Program (See Recommendation #12 below).
Recommendation 6: The City, County and private sector need to support and market the
new Rehabilitation Code that is being developed by Mecklenburg County. This Code
will help reduce the cost of rehabilitating old big boxes. This Code needs to be marketed
to potential retailers and developers of old sites as a way to reduce up fitting costs. This
Code also needs support since it is only a trial and will need legislative reauthorization in
2006.
Recommendation 7: The City of Charlotte needs more flexibility to consider reducing
setbacks and parking requirements for vacant big boxes. This will not attract new big
box retailers, since their parking requirements are usually greater than City requirements.
However, this will help in the redevelopment of vacant big boxes for smaller retail uses
by allowing additional building development in the setbacks and on existing parking. To
the extent that the City allows this, the additional development should be targeted at
developing the vacant big box into a mixed-use center.
Recommendation 8: The City of Charlotte should guarantee a 60 day rezoning hearing to
any rezoning requested of a vacant big box, if the rezoning conforms with an adopted
land use plan. This 60-day guarantee will give the developer a certain timeframe for a
decision, and thereby decrease the uncertainty and risk of the development. It will also
reduce the amount of money the developer spends holding the land waiting for a zoning
decision.
Recommendation 9: The City of Charlotte should select some vacant big boxes, in
markets that cannot support existing retail spaces, for rezoning to mixed-use. This will
set the stage for redevelopment of the site, signal the landowner to think differently about
the future of the site, provide the owner with additional allowed uses for the property,
while allowing a retail use should a market redevelop for such use. The Urban Land
Institute, in “Ten Principle’s for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips”, recommends
mixed-use zoning to reduce the amount of retail zoning.
Recommendation 10: The City of Charlotte should purchase some vacant big box sites
and redevelop them through public/private partnerships. One source of funds for this is
2
the Affordable Housing Funds. The City should be prepared to write down some land
costs when it resells the site. This is a legitimate cost of eliminating blight and adding
affordable housing. This will both eliminate unnecessary retail space, while adding back
“rooftops” that can support the other retail in the area. Another source of funds for this is
the City’s Smart Growth Land Acquisition Fund since many of the current vacant big
boxes are on transit corridors.
Recommendation 11: The City should solicit proposals from developers for
redevelopment of areas with large amounts of vacant big boxes. Through this solicitation
the developers could give the City their ideas for redeveloping theses areas and what
assistance they would need from the City. This may avoid the need for the City to buy
and hold land for redevelopment.
Recommendation 12: The City and County should amend the Business Investment
Program to provide additional financial incentives that may be necessary to redevelop
vacant big box sites. The City/County Business Investment program provides incentive
to vacant big boxes if they are reused for manufacturing, warehousing and central offices.
However, it does not apply to housing and its wage rate requirement is too high for many
warehousing/distribution companies. Amending the Business Investment Program to
include affordable housing would provide a no cost tool that could be used, if needed, to
close the financing gap for an affordable housing project. The City and County can
incent the reuse of vacant big boxes by lowering the wage rate requirement of the
program for warehousing/distribution companies, if they reuse an existing big box.
Recommendation 13: The City of Charlotte’s Business Corridor Improvement program
needs more than $1.2 million per year in order to “create place” along the 12 corridors
currently in the program. One principle of the Urban Land Institute’s report “Ten
Principles for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips” is the creation of place by
building attractive sidewalks, installing pedestrian lighting, street furniture, and
landscaping and creating gateways. Another ULI principle included in this report is “Put
Your Money (and Regulations) Where Your Policy Is”. The funding of these
improvements sends an important message to developers, landowners and residents.
Recommendation 14: The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County should pursue
legislation and a constitutional amendment that would allow the use of Project
Development Financing. This would give the City and County a way to finance
infrastructure improvements at big box sites that are redeveloped. This type of assistance
will probably be necessary to incent the private sector to redevelop these vacant big
boxes.
Recommendation 15: The City of Charlotte should appoint a stakeholders committee to
develop design criteria for future retail developments greater than 25,000 square feet.
These design criteria would apply to new retail developments requiring rezoning of land
and to new retail developments that are developed under existing “by-right” zoning.
3
What is a Retail Big Box
As discussed below, big boxes have changed over time. The older vacant big boxes that
dot Charlotte’s older business corridors are generally multi-tenant or single tenant retail
developments of 20,000+ square feet. Looking to the future, a retail big box is more
likely to be a single tenant retail building or space of more than 30,000 square feet. Thus,
the phrase big box encompasses traditional strip shopping centers anchored by a super
market, as well as the more recently built 150,000+ square feet “super centers”. Because
of the wide variation in “big boxes”, the Committee cautions that some recommendations
contained in this report will work on smaller big boxes, while others have more
applicability on larger big boxes.
Role of Big Box Retail in Today’s Economy
Big box retail began in the 1950’s as residential growth pushed into the suburbs, away
from downtowns. This residential growth created demand for retail services in the
suburbs, which was generally met by building “strip” shopping centers along major
roads, such as Independence Boulevard, Freedom Drive and Albemarle Road. And were
designed to serve the regional market. Smaller strip shopping centers, often anchored by
a grocery store, were located and designed to serve residential customers from a 1-3 mile
radius. These customers used automobiles to get to these retail centers.
In the 1980’s three trends started that changed retailing and increased the number and
size of big boxes. First, large single category retailers (Home Depot, Office Depot)
developed as a way to conveniently provide large quantities and varieties of certain
categories of goods at the lower prices desired by consumers. These stores initially
ranged in size from 50,000 to 90,000 square feet and sometimes were in stand alone
buildings and sometimes part of a large retail center. More recently, department stores
(K-Mart, Target) increased in size to range from 100,000 to 220,000 square feet. These
larger stores took advantage of economies of scale to lower prices and stock a broad
variety of goods in order to compete with the single category retailers. Membership
warehouses (Sam’s and Costco) developed in the early 1990’s to provide a wide variety
of goods from a wide variety of categories (groceries to car tires) at low prices desired by
consumers. These stores ranged in size from 90,000 to 100,000 square feet, and were
often located in or near “power centers” of 500,000 or more square feet of retail.
In the last two years, there is a national trend that indicates that new retail big boxes may
have reached their maximum size. Another design, not yet seen in Charlotte, is for two
story big box retail stores to fit into tighter more urban sites and vertical shopping
centers.
It is important to note that all these trends resulted from market forces to provide more
consumer choice at lower prices. Part of the way the retailers accomplished this was to
take advantage of economies of scale by building bigger stores. The smaller urban and
4
two story big boxes respond to the markets created in urban neighborhoods as the
neighborhoods are revitalized.
Reasons for Vacant Big Boxes
The Committee believes that solutions to vacant big boxes must focus on the reasons for
Big Box vacancies. The Committee focused their discussion on the following reasons:
1. Market Movement: In Charlotte’s rapidly urbanizing area most new residential
development occurs at the fringes of the community. This creates new markets at
the fringe of the community and retailers build stores, and eventually big boxes,
to serve these new markets. In short, “retail follows rooftops”. Examples of this
include: Concord Mills and The Arboretum.
2. Inner City Decline: In Charlotte, and many other American cities, this rapidly
urbanizing fringe has occurred simultaneously with a decline of inner city
neighborhoods. While rooftops have been growing at the urban fringe, the
numbers of residents and rooftops in inner city neighborhoods have not kept pace
in terms of relative buying power. Thus, the market has geographically shifted
and retailers have moved with the market in order to maintain profitable stores.
Examples of this include: shopping center growth along Franklin Boulevard in
Gastonia and vacant big boxes appearing on Freedom Drive; and, University City
area shopping centers (University Place and Chancellor Park) growing, and
vacant big boxes appearing on North Tryon Street.
3. National Bankruptcies and Restructuring: Over the past few years, several
national big box retailers have gone out of business or significantly reduced the
number of stores through bankruptcy restructuring. This trend is expected to
continue as there is general consensus that there is currently sufficient retail
square footage (20 square feet per person) in the United States. Retailers that have
recently gone bankrupt include: Service Merchandise, Uptons, Helig Meyers,
Hechingers, Montgomery Wards, Incredible Universe and Wacamaw Pottery.
Also several big box retailers have merged, resulting in the closing of duplicative
stores. An example of this in Charlotte is the closing of Hannaford grocery stores
due to their merger with Food Lion.
4. Changes in Retailers Store Format: Many of the vacant big boxes in Charlotte are
over 20 years old. During that time retailers’ store needs have changed.
Generally today’s big box retailers want bigger stores with taller ceiling heights
and more loading docks than those stores built 20 years ago. This allows the
retailers to provide lower prices through economies of scale. An example of this
in Charlotte is the Wal-Mart at South Boulevard that will close when the Super
Wal-Mart opens at Whitehall. Big box retailers also have prototypical store
5
formats that they replicate across the country and are very reluctant to vary from
these formats. Therefore, today’s big box retailers are hesitant to reuse an
existing vacant big box. When they do reuse a vacant big box, they often
demolish the existing vacant big box and redevelop the site. Examples of this in
Charlotte include: The redevelopment of the Hannaford’s at Woodlawn and Park
Roads; and, the redevelopment of the Target on Independence Boulevard by BJ’s
Warehouse.
5. Leasehold Interests: A leasehold interest is the control that the retailer keeps on a
leased property by maintaining the lease even though they no longer occupy the
retail space. A leasehold interest would need to be subleased or “bought-out” to
allow another retailer to use the space. Often the leasehold interest prohibits
similar retailers from leasing the vacant space in order to keep competitors out of
the market. This makes it more difficult to re-lease the vacant big box space.
Technical ramifications in the lease and/or division of the ownership of the land
and its improvements can further complicate the opportunity to sub-lease or buyout leasehold interests.
Market Driven Solutions: Currently Vacant Big Boxes
In January 2002, there were 35 vacant big boxes in Charlotte greater than 20,000 square
feet. Most of these vacant big boxes were along Charlotte’s older business corridors such
as Freedom Drive, Wilkerson Boulevard and North Tryon Street. As the Committee
discussed the reasons for vacant big boxes, the theme of market forces appeared to run
through all of the reasons. Therefore, the Committee focused its discussion on strategies
to influence the market.
To begin, the Committee believes that each vacant big box location is different because
the market forces affecting a vacant big box on Freedom Drive are different from those
affecting a big box on North Tryon Street or Albemarle Road. Therefore, one solution
will not fit all vacant big boxes. The markets for each vacant big box must be analyzed,
and based on that analysis, a determination can be made about the market for the big box.
The Committee believes these market studies would indicate which of the following
categories the big box falls into:
1. The vacant big box does have a retail future for big box retail or for smaller scale
retail.
2. The vacant big box has no retail future, but there is a market for reuse of the
structure for another purpose, or there is a market for reusing the land underneath
the big box for some other use.
6
Possible Solutions: Currently Vacant Big Boxes
The Committee’s proposed solutions are based upon what the market study indicates the
future of the vacant big box is. A key to this approach is the City continuing to undertake
market studies of vacant big boxes similar to those recently completed on Freedom Drive
and Beatties Ford Road, and currently underway for North Tryon at Sugar Creek. A study
for Independence Boulevard is funded in FY’03
Recommendation 1: The City of Charlotte needs to continue to fund market studies of
areas impacted by vacant big boxes to determine the market for reuse of the building or
redevelopment of the site, including redevelopment for residential uses. These studies
cost approximately $25,000 on average. The City also needs to use these studies to
proactively seek retailers and developers to fill market niches identified by the studies.
Recommendation 2: The City of Charlotte needs to better understand the implications for
vacant big boxes, and existing inner city big boxes, of rezoning additional land on the
fringe of the urban area for big box retail. Staff and City Council when making rezoning
decisions for significant new retail on the fringe should review the market analysis done
under recommendation #1, to the extent that it is relevant. This would be one of many
factors considered in making a rezoning recommendation and decision.
Possible Solutions: Vacant Big Boxes with Retail Future
Recommendation 3: The City of Charlotte needs to continue its Communities Within a
City strategy and Neighborhood Improvement Capital Improvement Program. These are
both aimed at sustaining and rebuilding inner city neighborhoods, which in turn makes
for healthier markets and attracts retailers. Creating “rooftops” in these communities
through infill housing and affordable housing programs will help make these areas
attractive for retailers and help fill vacant big boxes.
Recommendation 4: The City of Charlotte needs to increase the amount of Façade and
Infrastructure Grants available for vacant big boxes. Both of these programs are
currently capped at $10,000, which is insignificant considering the costs of updating and
up fitting a vacant big box. The estimated cost of basic improvements to a 200-foot long
grocery store façade is $84,000. The current City programs would provide 12% of just
the facade cost.
Recommendation 5: The City of Charlotte needs to find other tools to assist developers
financially in the up fitting of their vacant big boxes. The City may wish to target their
assistance to providing infrastructure improvements, such as a grid street system, that will
provide additional redevelopment opportunities in the future. Possibilities funding
sources include: Section 108 Loans, New Market Tax Credits, and a revised Business
Investment Program (See Recommendation #12 below).
7
Recommendation 6: The City, County and private sector need to support and market the
new Rehabilitation Code that is being developed by Mecklenburg County. This Code
will help reduce the cost of rehabilitating old big boxes. This Code needs to be marketed
to potential retailers and developers of old sites as a way to reduce up fitting costs. This
Code also needs support since it is only a trial and will need legislative reauthorization in
2006.
Recommendation 7: The City of Charlotte needs more flexibility to consider reducing
setbacks and parking requirements for vacant big boxes. This will not attract new big
box retailers, since their parking requirements are usually greater than City requirements.
However, this will help in the redevelopment of vacant big boxes for smaller retail uses
by allowing additional building development in the setbacks and on existing parking. To
the extent that the City allows this, the additional development should be targeted at
developing the vacant big box into a mixed-use center.
Possible Solutions: Vacant Big Boxes with No Retail Future
In some cases, the market study will indicate that the market will not support additional
retail and that the vacant big box or site has a better use due to changes in the surrounding
neighborhoods. This use may be light manufacturing or office, or it may be clearing the
site to build housing.
Recommendation 8: The City of Charlotte should guarantee a 60-day rezoning hearing to
any rezoning requested of a vacant big box, if the rezoning conforms with an adopted
land use plan. This 60-day guarantee will give the developer a certain timeframe for a
decision, and thereby decrease the uncertainty and risk of the development. It will also
reduce the amount of money the developer spends holding the land waiting for a zoning
decision.
Recommendation 9: The City of Charlotte should select some vacant big boxes, in
markets that cannot support existing retail spaces, for rezoning to mixed-use. This will
set the stage for redevelopment of the site, signal the landowner to think differently about
the future of the site, provide the owner with additional allowed uses for the property,
while allowing a retail use should a market redevelop for such use. The Urban Land
Institute, in “Ten Principle’s for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips”, recommends
mixed-use zoning to reduce the amount of retail zoning.
Recommendation 10: The City of Charlotte should purchase some vacant big box sites
and redevelop them through public/private partnerships. One source of funds for this is
the Affordable Housing Funds. The City should be prepared to write down some land
costs when it resells the site. This is a legitimate cost of eliminating blight and adding
affordable housing. This will both eliminate unnecessary retail space, while adding back
“rooftops” that can support the other retail in the area. Another source of funds for this is
the City’s Smart Growth Land Acquisition Fund since many of the current vacant big
boxes are on transit corridors.
8
Recommendation 11: The City should solicit proposals from developers for
redevelopment of areas with large amounts of vacant big boxes. Through this
solicitation, the developers could give the City their ideas for redeveloping theses areas
and what assistance they would need from the City. This may avoid the need for the City
to buy and hold land for redevelopment.
Recommendation 12: The City and County should amend the Business Investment
Program to provide additional financial incentives that may be necessary to redevelop
vacant big box sites. The City/County Business Investment Program provides incentives
to vacant big boxes if they are reused for manufacturing, warehousing and central offices.
However, it does not apply to housing and its wage rate requirement is too high for many
warehousing/distribution companies. Amending the Business Investment Program to
include affordable housing would provide a no cost tool that could be used, if needed, to
close the financing gap for an affordable housing project. The City and County can
incent the reuse of vacant big boxes by lowering the wage rate requirement of the
program for warehousing/distribution companies, if they reuse an existing big box.
Recommendation 13: The City of Charlotte’s Business Corridor Improvement Program
needs more than $1.2 million per year in order to “create place” along the 12 corridors
currently in the program. One principle of the Urban Land Institute’s report “Ten
Principles for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips” is the creation of place by
building attractive sidewalks, installing pedestrian lighting, and street furniture,
landscaping and creating gateways. Another ULI principle included in this report is “Put
Your Money (and Regulations) Where Your Policy Is”. The funding of these
improvements sends an important message to developers, landowners and residents.
Recommendation 14: The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County should pursue
legislation and a constitutional amendment that would allow the use of Project
Development Financing. This would give the City and County a way to finance
infrastructure improvements at big box sites that are redeveloped. This type of assistance
will probably be necessary to incent the private sector to redevelop these vacant big
boxes.
Existing City Programs that Address Currently Vacant Big Boxes
1. Façade Grant Program: The program provides 50% reimbursement up to $10,000
to commercial businesses or property owners for eligible renovation costs. To
date, this has not been used by any shopping center or big box because the amount
is not enough incentive. Program currently budgeted at $200,000 per year.
2. Infrastructure Grant Program: The program provides grants up o $10,000 or 10%
of the total private investment, whichever is less. The money must be used to
provide sidewalks, curb and gutter, trees and other City required expenses. To
date, this has not been used by any shopping centers or big boxes because of the
small amount of funding available. Program currently budgeted at $200,000 per
year, which it shares with Security Grants and Grease Trap Grants.
9
3. Streetscape and Corridor Improvements: This program is aimed at improving the
appearance of the City right-of-way by building sidewalks, medians, crosswalks
and other improvements in the City right-of-way. This program is currently
funded at $1.2 million per year.
4. Brownfield Assessment Grant and Revolving Loan Fund: This program assists
property owners to overcome barriers that contamination presents to the
redevelopment of sites. The grant provides matching funds up to $20,000 for
assessment activities. The loan provides funds for clean up of approved sites.
This program has been used on the redevelopment of Westover Shopping Center.
5. State Brownfield Tax Incentive: The State of North Carolina provides a five-year
property tax reduction for projects that have a “brownfields agreement” with the
State of North Carolina. This would only apply to big boxes that have
environmental contamination.
Other Issues Discussed: Currently Vacant Big Boxes
The Committee discussed many other possible solutions, some of which came from the
Planning Commission’s report. The recommendations discussed above are the ones that
the Committee believed would have the most impact on vacant big boxes.
The Committee did discuss the possibility of reuse of vacant big boxes by the City,
County and Schools. While the Committee supports this idea, the Committee cautions
that reusing vacant big boxes may be more costly than building new, and may only be a
short-term solution to a long-term space need. Several citizens at the Stakeholders
meeting suggested purchasing vacant big box sites for parks, since most of the vacant big
box sites were near residential areas. The Committee did not recommend this because
big box sites are located along heavily traveled highways that are not appropriate for
parks. In addition, the Committee thought it would be extremely expensive to retrofit an
asphalt covered big box site into the natural environment desired for a park.
The Committee thought that relief from parking lot and tree ordinances, although
potentially helpful, would not be a sufficient incentive for redeveloping big boxes. First
they are marginal costs and secondly they help create place and eradicate ugliness. An
alternative way for the City to assist in this regard is to increase the amount of City
money available through the Façade and Infrastructure Grant programs (See
Recommendation #4). However, the Committee did think that redeveloping of vacant big
boxes could be made easier if there was flexibility in the Tree Ordinance to group the
required trees together, rather than spread them over the parking lot.
The Committee discussed the Planning Commission’s idea of density bonuses. The
Committee does not believe a density bonus provides an incentive because of its limited
applicability to big box sites that still have a retail market. Those sites that are being
redeveloped can get increased density through the rezoning process, particularly if the
site has already been rezoned for higher density mixed-use (See Recommendation #8).
10
Future Big Boxes
The Committee believes there are some actions the City and County can take that would
help reduce the number of vacant big boxes in the future. However, the Committee does
not believe there is a solution that will guarantee that future big boxes will not become
vacant because there are market forces beyond the City’s control.
The recommendations made below regarding future big box retail developments are
designed to do the following:
 Minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods if a future big box
becomes vacant.
 Encourage quality development that will be more attractive and adaptable for
reuse should a big box become vacant.
 Encourage new forms of development that encourage more pedestrian-related
activity.
 Improve quality of the interface between neighborhoods adjacent to big boxes.
To accomplish these goals, the Committee believes that the City and County should
focus on the design of future big boxes. Requiring better designed big boxes adds value
to the development by making them more unique places that people are attracted to.
This uniqueness should prolong their useful life, and make it easier to release a retail big
box if it or portions of the retail center become vacant.
Recommendations: Future Big Boxes
The Committee recommends the development of design criteria for future retail
developments greater than 25,000 square feet. These design criteria would apply to new
retail developments requiring rezoning of land and to new retail developments that are
developed under existing zoning. They might function in a way similar to criteria
currently under development for retail-oriented mixed/multi use centers as a part of the
City’s General Development Policies.
The Committee recommends an approach that will allow for differing design approaches
and site circumstances, and will allow a developer some latitude in selecting ways to
achieve the goal of improved big box design. One approach would be to use a system of
points, with various design criteria each assigned a number of points. In order to qualify
for a rezoning or a building permit, the retail development would then have to receive a
designated total number of points.
The Committee suggests that a stakeholder committee consider the design criteria below.
They are grouped into categories. A certain number of points in each category might be
required in order to insure that the design meets a level of expectations within each
category. City Council should appoint this stakeholder committee to review current
zoning requirements, as well as to recommend specific criteria and how to weigh them.
11
Suggested Design Criteria
BUILDING DESIGN
Entrances
1
Usable public entrances to some retail use facing all street fronts
2
Prominent recessed entrance, or entrance under arcade
3
Storefronts with windows, awnings, or arcades over 60% of front façade length
Façade
4
No long uninterrupted façades; break wall expanses with recesses/projections
5
Exterior façade articulated with pilasters or offsets on entire length of all visible
sides
6
Incorporate mezzanine windows, or 2nd floor windows
Materials
7
8
9
Roofline
10
11
12
13
ACCESS
Sidewalks
Amenities
Connectivity
PARKING
Massing
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Break up building facade by variation in materials or textures in a horizontal
rhythm
Use Natural, unpainted brick or stone for majority of opaque surfaces
Neutral or earth tone colors for bulk of façade, with bright colors only for
accents
Provide variations in parapet height or roof line
Use traditional roofing materials and structure visible to the public in neutral or
earth-tone colors
Decorative Cornice along all façades facing a street
Screen all rooftop equipment from public view with parapet
Include a sidewalk network connecting all buildings on site
Provide pedestrian walkways from street to all big box or anchor entrances
Provide a sidewalk or plaza full length of any façade with customer entrance or
parking lot
Benches and public waiting area at each entrance
Provide direct sidewalk connection to a bus or transit shelter
Park and ride area with shelter
Direct vehicular connection to adjacent development
Direct pedestrian and bicycle connection to adjacent development
Multiple vehicular connection points to public streets
Break parking areas into limited areas broken by building mass and continuous
landscaped areas
Establish grid system of vehicular travel through site
Provide parallel or angled parking at building façade
Provide continuous landscaped island across the drive isle from the anchor
store main entrance to create a pedestrian safe crossing zone
Limit parking between public street and front of building to 50% of total site
parking, with remainder to side and rear of main building
Limit parking to the minimum number of spaces required by zoning
Internalize parking by locating buildings to buffer view from public street, not to
include use of traditional outparcel buildings
Provide deck or structured parking
12
SITE
Placement
31
32
33
34
35
Streetscape
36
37
Integrate big box tenant with a multi-use master plan
Integrate big box tenant within a building containing smaller stores
Limit store depth to a size that can be subdivided for reuse by multiple tenants
in the future
Build façade with an entry at front setback line
Build facade with an entry that is no more than one bay of parking back from
setback line
Provide public amenity such as park, fountain, outdoor dining, or multi-use
hardscape area at an appropriate pedestrian-intense location
Provide underground utilities along all public streets
Appendix B includes a more detailed description of some of these criteria that was
developed by committee member Frank Goppold of Little and Associates.
Appendix C includes a proposed weighting of these criteria that the Committee
discussed. These weighted criteria could serve as a starting point for the recommended
Stakeholder Committee.
Given the wide range of size and location (infill to greenfield sites) of retail development
where these criteria would apply, the Committee believes this type of system would
provide flexibility to the developer’s needs while accomplishing the goal of improving
design. This type of objective system may also be better from a legal perspective than a
system based on subjective staff considerations.
The Committee is aware that standards are under development on a number of other
issues at the moment. Among these are General Development Policies for RetailOriented Mixed/Multi-Use Centers and Street Design Guidelines. As these standards
emerge, they will have an impact on the form and content of the Big Box Design
Criteria.
Future Big Boxes: Other Ideas Discussed
The Committee discussed and researched two other ideas relating to future big boxes,
but does not recommend them.
The first idea is requiring the developer to post a “demolition bond” that would be used
to demolish the building if the big box becomes and remains vacant for a significant
period of time. This presents several problems that the Committee and other financial
experts were unable to solve, including:

How to make any lender whole if the building is demolished?
o Vacant big boxes often still have debt outstanding and the building,
vacant or not, has value to the lender. Any demolition bond would have
to be sufficient to pay off the lender.
13

How to calculate the amount of the bond needed to pay off the lender?
o In order to make this calculation, one would have to make assumptions
about the amount of debt left on the big box when it was demolished.
These assumptions involve the expected life of the big box versus the
term of the loan; any refinancing that might be done on the loan; property
value appreciation or depreciation over this time period; and, the equity
value of the property.
The Committee also discussed ways to force retailers to release big boxes they are no
longer using. This would address the problem of big box operators vacating a store for a
bigger one, but continuing to lease the vacant big box in order to keep competition out of
the market. This practice makes it very difficult for the other tenants in this shopping
center to remain viable. The Committee looked at several options, but in the end, decided
that the City had no legal authority to impose itself into this business transaction, and, the
retailers owning their stores rather than leasing them could easily avoid such a
requirement.
14
APPENDIX A
Big Box Committee Members
Bradley Smith
Bank of America
Frank Goppold
Little & Associates
Mark Cramer
REBIC
Mary Hopper
Planning Commission
Meredith Gubler
Trinity Partners
Diane Carter
Real Estate
Deborah Currier
Currier Properties
Lisa Hagood
Land Development
Lat Purser
Lat Purser & Associates
John Cock
Planning
Kent Main
Planning
Tom Winstead
Trammell Crow Co.
Bob Hagemann
City Attorney’s Office
Alex Dmyterko
Crossland Group
Robert Cook
CATS
Christi Landino
Neighborhood Development
Jim Bartl
Land Use & Environmental
Services
Brian Thrower
City Manager’s Office
Tom Flynn
Economic Development
Office
15
APPENDIX B
BUILDING DESIGN
Entrances
 Usable Public Entrances Facing All Street Fronts: When retail building fronts on
more than one public road a public entrance can be situated on each facade facing a
road. These entrances shall be prominent in nature and expressed with architectural
detailing which provides a clear visual connection with the street.

Prominent Recessed Entrance or Entrance Under Arcade: Entrances shall be
protected from the weather so that a pedestrian can stand outdoors undercover
protected from the elements. A minimum distance of 10’ is recommended for
protection from blowing rain. It is recommended that this entrance protection be
connected with an arcade or awning devices that provide a reasonable amount of
protection for pedestrians connecting to adjacent commercial uses. Additionally this
requirement will assist in providing a safe zone away from traffic at the entrance.

Storefronts with Windows, Awnings or Arcades over 60% of Length: Building
facades incorporating awnings or arcades are strongly encouraged. These arcades or
protected awning areas should be tied into the primary entrance points on each
facade. They should provide a relatively continuous protection area for pedestrians as
they walk along the building face. Awnings and arcades provide shelter from both
inclement weather and solar exposure. The intent is to use these elements to provide
shadow lines on the facades of buildings and reduce the scale of large uninterrupted
wall areas.
Facade
 No Uninterrupted Façade: Recesses, projection, or changes in the plane of the
building facade in plan shall be provided at increments not exceeding 100’ of
building facade. In addition the recessed or projected areas shall extend not less that
3% of the length of that facade in a perpendicular dimension. The purpose of this
guideline is to break long uninterrupted expanses into more palatable proportions and
separate volumes.

Exterior Facade Articulated with Pilasters: Articulation of building facades with
architectural pilasters or other regularly spaced offsets at an interval not exceeding
30’ along the length of the facade encouraged to provide a reduction in scale and
compatibility with smaller nearby commercial uses.

Incorporate Mezzanine Windows or Second Floor Windows: Incorporating
mezzanine windows where large retail users have mezzanine storage areas can be
utilized to soften the vertical height of the side and rear walls of buildings adjacent to
both mezzanine storage and two-story storage areas. These windows shall be true
vision glass allowing light to penetrate the mezzanine and storage areas.
16
Materials
 Break up Façade by Variation in Materials or Textures in Facade in a Horizontal
Rhythm: Provide at least three separate primary materials in the design of facades
exposed to public view. To qualify, these materials shall be at least 15% of the
building facade but in no case greater than 40% of the facade. Cornices, architectural
columns, gutters, downspouts, trim work, and sign areas should not be counted as a
primary material. These materials shall be applied in a horizontal rhythm so as to
break the horizontal linearity of the facade.

Use Natural Unpainted Brick or Stone for Majority of Opaque Surfaces: The purpose
of this requirement is to encourage the use of quality, durable, and permanent
materials that can be easily maintained throughout their life. The use of large
uninterrupted areas of concrete or stucco lacking pedestrian level facade details are
discouraged.

Neutral or Earth Tone Colors for Bulk of Façade: Neutral and earth tone colors are
recommended to avoid negative impact to surrounding areas through the use of
trendy, overpowering or garish colors as primary elements of the building design. Use
bright colors only for accents.
Roofline
 Provide Variations in Parapet Height or Roof Lines: Parapet height shall vary or be
broken by intersecting roof lines at not greater than 60’ intervals. A recess or
projection in the building facade extending to the parapet height can achieve the
desired visual effect of breaking up long uninterrupted cornice lines.

Use Traditional Roofing Materials Visible to the Public in Neutral or Earth Tone
Colors: Roofing materials utilized for arcade roofs, sloping roofs, mansard roofs, and
other sloped roof surfaces visible to the public should resemble natural materials and
traditional roofing lending a feeling of permanence to the structure. Materials
including natural slate, manufactured slate products, clay tile, and metal roofing are
encouraged. Natural shades including browns, grays, black, bronze, copper, zinc, and
green are encouraged. Bright colors including blue, red, orange, purple, yellow, and
other colors of statement are discouraged.

Decorative Corners along Facades Facing Streets: The intent of this guideline is to
provide a traditional building facade termination with the sky. Cornice treatments
creating a shadowing line, change in texture, or change in material visually
terminating the top of the wall are encouraged. This treatment helps reduce the
overall scale of the building and provides a framework for other architectural
treatments to occur. Recommended materials are corbel brick, stucco, durable
synthetic material and metal.
17
APPENDIX C
POSSIBLE WEIGHTED CRITERIA
x
score possib
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
7
2
8
2
10
2
11
2
12
1
13
1
14
3
15
1
16
25
10 reqd
BUILDING
DESIGN
Entrances Main entrance facing street
Usable public entrances to some retail use facing all street fronts
Prominent recessed entrance, or entrance under arcade
Storefronts with windows, awnings, or arcades over 60% of length
Façade No uninterrupted façade over 100 ft.; recesses/projections >3% on 20%
of total length
Exterior façade articulated with pilasters or offsets min. 30’ OC entire length,
all visible sides
Incorporate mezzanine windows, or 2nd floor windows
Materials At least 3 different materials or textures in façade in a horizontal rhythm
Natural, unpainted brick or stone for 50% of opaque surfaces
Neutral or earth tone colors for 90% of façade
Roofline Variations in parapet ht. or roof lines every 60’ or less
Traditional roofing materials visible to the public in neutral or earthtone colors
Decorative Cornice along façades facing streets
ACCESS
2
17
Sidewalks 6’ minimum wide sidewalk network connecting all buildings on site
1
18
6’ wide pedestrian walk from street to all big box or anchor entrances
2
19
Sidewalk or plaza full length of any façade with customer entrance or parking lot
2
21
Amenities Benches and public waiting area at each entrance
2
23
Building within 500’ of bus or transit shelter with direct sidewalk connection
1
24
Park and ride area with shelter
3
25 Connectivity Direct vehicular connection to adjacent development
3
26
Direct pedestrian and bicycle connection to adjacent development
3
27
Internal vehicular connection to outparcels
2
28
Internal pedestrian walkways to outparcel buildings
2
29
Multiple vehicular connection points to public streets
23
10 reqd
PARKING
4
30
Massing Parking areas limited to 125 spaces before broken with a building mass
or continuous landscape area
2
31
Establish grid system of vehicular travel through site
2
32
Provide parallel or angled parking at building façade
2
33
Provide continuous landscaped island to create pedestrian safe zone at main entry
4
34
Limit parking between public street and front of building to 50% of total site parking
3
35
Limit parking to 4spaces/1000sf
4
36
Internalize parking by locating buildings to buffer view from public street,
not to include use of traditional outparcel buildings
4
37
25
10 reqd
Provide deck or structured parking
18
4
3
1
3
2
2
SITE
39 Placement
40
41
42
43
46 Streetscape
1
47
3
2
1
1
2
48
49
52
53
55
Integrate big box tenant with multi use masterplan DEFINE MINIMUM
Integrate big box tenant with smaller stores DEFINE MINIMUM
Limit store depth to 200’
Build facade with an entry at front setback line
Build facade with an entry within 100’ of setback
Provide pedestrian streetscape in sidewalk at entire property frontage,
including street trees, street lights, and landscaping
Provide public amenity such as park, fountain, outdoor dining,
or multi use hardscape area at an appropriate pedestrian-intense
location (POSSIBLE MULTIPLE POINTS OPTION)
Provide underground utilities along all public streets
Screening Completely screen truckwells and loading areas from public view
Screen all rooftop equipment from public view with parapet
Screen all dumpsters and compactors from public view
Use 35-ft planted buffer and 6-ft berm with evergreen planting for all sides facing
residential properties
25
10 reqd
CONSIDER BONUS POINTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN TARGET AREAS
98
50 reqd
19