PC 03/12/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

The store would be a full-line neighborhood store with a fresh deli and bakery. They will also sell beer, wine and liquor. There will be one employee to staff the store; they have requested a 24 hour operation. ,- Staff has looked impact of this use on the surrounding area. Staff feels it would have a positive effect in the area by providing a service that is not now available. They looked at the 24-hour per day aspect of the operation. In looking at other 24 hour stores, staff has not found there to be any problems associated with 24 hour operation. Because there is a sound wall between the shopping center and the residences behind the shopping center and because the store is oriented facing the front of the shopping center, staff does not believe this will be a problem and is willing to support the 24 hour operation. Staff received a few negative comments on this application. However, the townhouse Homeowners Association did not object to the convenience market; their concerns revolved around the maintenance issues of the shopping center itself. Conditions restrict garbage dumping after 8 pm and deliveries are limited to between 7 am and 9 pm. Mr. Iserson advised that the applicants are concerned with Conditions 2 and 3. Condition 2 is a standard condition of approval that is incorporated in every use permit stating that the Planning Director does have authority to refer the permit back to the Planning Commission if problems arise. Condition 3 speaks to a six month staff-level review of the application to make an assessment that everything is operating smoothly. If problems are noted, the permit would be referred to the Commission. The applicants are concerned that with the investment of money to make the site suitable as a convenience market, they do not want to be under these conditions that could add additional conditions or result in permit revocation. Sufficient parking is available; there are more parking spaces at the center than are required by the Code. Shopping carts will be stored in the store. Because there is no rear access from the store to the dumpster in the rear of the shopping center, the applicant proposed carting the garbage around to the rear of the store. The trash dumpster is to be enlarged. More frequent garbage service is to be provided. Staff reviewed the trash situation and feels carting the trash to the rear will be problematic and disruptive to other business tenants. Staff suggested that either a direct rear access be constructed in the store or locate a trash enclosure with landscaping in the front of the shopping center. Such a trash enclosure appropriately designed and constructed with the proper materials is the preferred alternative of staff. The shopping center owner is opposed to this proposal, and would rather have the trash carted to the rear. Their second choice would be to construct a rear access. Another issue of concern is the ongoing problem with graffiti, non-tenant garbage dumping, and the lack of maintenance in the rear of this shopping center. The property owner has indicated they will be willing to work with staff on these problems. Staff has not put conditions on this application regarding the overall shopping center maintenance. Roof screening of the roof-top equipment has also been a problem. The applicant has agreed to screen the mechanical equipment needed for this application. Staff will work with the property owner on screening the remaining roof-top equipment. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 12, 1997