Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retail Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kroger center developer previews new retail building; commissioners ask for parking, lighting and traffic data
Summary
Architects presented a preliminary amendment to the Kroger‑anchored retail center on Oct. 27 proposing a new 6,095 sq. ft. retail building with a possible drive‑through; commissioners requested parking counts, photometric analysis and traffic review before the plan advances.
Developers previewed an amended development plan for the Kroger‑anchored shopping center on Oct. 27 that would add a 6,095‑square‑foot freestanding retail building and potential drive‑through in an area of underused parking. The presentation was preliminary; no action was taken.
Mark Ford, architect with Ford & Associates, said the proposal would remove about 126 existing parking spaces in the footprint to be redeveloped and that the reconfiguration would “add parking spaces with the new retail building” but would result in a net change of 99 parking spaces impacted by the reconfiguration. Ford said the building’s materials and rooflines will match the existing center and that rooftop mechanicals will be screened.
Commissioners sought specific numbers and analysis before advancing the plan. Commissioner comments focused on four issues:
• Parking counts and required spaces: Staff agreed to calculate the complex’s required parking versus existing spaces and the effect of the proposed changes and to send that calculation to commissioners after the meeting.
• Lighting and photometrics: Commissioners said the addition of Buildings B and C has already reduced perceived lighting at certain entry points and asked the applicant to analyze photometrics so the reconfigured islands and new building do not create dark corridors or unsafe conditions.
• Landscaping and long‑term maintenance: Commissioners raised longstanding resident complaints about uneven landscape upkeep across the center and asked who maintains common landscaping; the applicant said Mallory (property manager) handles management and that maintenance responsibilities are recorded in the center’s documents.
• Traffic and circulation at Miller Drive: Commissioners noted recurring backups at the Miller Drive signal and asked whether an additional building would worsen queueing. Staff and the applicant acknowledged existing congestion and said larger traffic‑engineering steps (lane additions, turn lanes) would require separate study and city coordination.
Staff also agreed to provide to the commission the complex’s parking requirement calculation (how many spaces would be required for the full development), and to review photometric plans when provided by the applicant. The applicant said there were no tenant commitments to the new building at the time of the presentation; the ATM on the site has a long‑term lease and will remain in place. No motion or vote was taken.
