City gives Wal-Mart a restriction.

Byline: Karen McCowan The Register-Guard

COTTAGE GROVE - After a series of public compromises with Wal-Mart over its proposed expansion here, the City Council on Monday night served up a new condition as part of its tentative approval of a larger store.

At the suggestion of the city's planning staff, the council added a caveat to its tentative endorsement of a zoning rule change that would allow an expansion of the store from 81,000 to 150,000 square feet:

Wal-Mart also must build, or arrange construction of, four additional buildings along Row River Road for other, smaller businesses. And that 30,000 square feet of space must be completed before Wal-Mart can occupy its new store.

The proposed superstore would be 10,000 square feet smaller than Wal-Mart originally sought last year, but 40,000 square feet larger than the limit set when Cottage Grove approved the existing store in 1994.

The terms of the council's 6-1 vote in favor of Wal-Mart's expansion would help the city achieve its longtime goal of attracting some smaller, tourism-related restaurants and retailers as a buffer to the big box store and its acres of parking.

Wal-Mart itself proposed making some of the land it purchased for store expansion available for smaller retailers along Row River Road, after the city's planning commission recommended denial of the big box company's application. Commission members said it would alter the character of the "tourism-commercial" neighborhood if the city were to allow Wal-Mart to build such a large store and expand its parking lot all the way to Row River Road.

Wal-Mart's proposed compromise did not require the Arkansas-based company to build on those outlying retail "pads," however. Nor did it suggest their completion before the expanded store could open for business.

The City Council in May postponed a decision on Wal-Mart's compromise proposal, saying it first wanted a study of the traffic impact, including a review by the Oregon Department of Transportation. That agency signed off on the plan in June, saying it would not generate more trips on Row River Road than a "worst case development scenario" under current zoning rules.

Wal-Mart attorney Greg Hathaway expressed dismay Monday night at the additional requirement -- and at the fact that he didn't learn of it until Monday morning.

"We don't think that's a condition that's in the best interest of the community," he told the council.

Hathaway said Wal-Mart's intention was that the expanded store would serve as a "catalyst" to attract other retailers interested in locating along Row River road. He said Wal-Mart never intended to develop the four outlying buildings.

He objected to requiring completion of those buildings before the superstore could open, saying it could hold up opening of the superstore or "perpetuate a shell building that is vacant."

"Realistically, this isn't the way that any of this works," he said.

But several city councilors said the condition was necessary to avoid a repeat of what happened in 1994, when Wal-Mart officials represented that their store would be a magnet for smaller, tourism-related development along Row River Road. Such development never occurred.

Councilor Wayne Clark urged approval of a motion directing the city attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the zoning code changes, including the requirement that the smaller retail space be completed before a larger Wal-Mart opens for business.

"I think Wal-Mart can give a little here and help us get a piece of property developed," he said. "I would hate to think that something as insignificant as 30,000 square feet of commercial property would be a deal-breaker to the world's largest retailer."

Mayor Gary Williams agreed, saying the city's final proposal was "a great opportunity for the city and for Wal-Mart."

The council voted 6-1 in support of the motion by Councilor Lynn Miller. Councilor Diane Conrad cast the single vote against the measure, saying she was not satisfied with traffic impact studies.

Hathaway and other Wal-Mart representatives at the meeting declined to say how the retailer will respond to the decision, referring questions to spokeswoman Jennifer Holder.