Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-1983 Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis PA82-013'THE CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 MEMO PRE-HEARING STAFF ANALYSIS Meeting Date: March 7, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Director (415) 829-4600 SUBJECT: Parking Variance and Building Code Variance for Albertson's Store 1733 - PA 82-013 GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: Albertson's has requested a 105-car parking variance and a Building Code Variance to allow them to expand the size of their store in the Dublin Pla2.a Shopping Center. APPLICANT: Albertson's, 6400 Village Parkway, Dublin 94568 REPRESENTATIVE: Dennis Sheehan ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-305-14-2 PROPERTY OWNER: 7th Cheltenham Properties, Inc. c/o The Corporation Trtlst Company 100 W. Tenth Street Wilmington DE 19801 EXISTING ZONING: (C-1) Retail Business EXISTING LAND USE: Albertson's Food Store SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: f/It North - C-1 - GEMCO East - C-1 - Small shops QPY South - C-1 - Small shops/parking West - C-1 - Shopping Center SITE/ZONING HISTORY: On December 3, 19611, the Alamdea County Planning Department approved a Tentative Map #3135 and Site Development Rev=iew, S-293, for the Dublin Plaza. The shopping center has nine lots, each o_= which has its own owner (See Attachment - Parcel Map). Common rights of access are provided for each parcel to allow cars to drive across parcel lanes and share parking spaces. In January, 1971, the Board of Supervisors also granted Building Code variances to the developers of the center to allow 1) buildings to be closer to thE! property lines than was allowed by the Building Code; 2) that these buildings could have openings in them (for doors and windows) that were closer to the property lines thar. allowed; and, 3) that covered walkways could connect the buildings, where the Building Code required fire separations which would not have allowed connected walkways (See attacr.ments). APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Zoning Ordinance: Section 8-93.0, Variances: discusses the precise legal basis upon which a land use variance may be granted. Each of the following must be answered in the affirmative in order to grant a variance: 1. That there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, under the identical zoning classification; 2. That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; 3. That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. City policy is t:o have the Zoning Administrator act on variances, however, where a City policy concern is involved, the variance may be referred to the Planning Commission for comment and then be decided upon by tr.e City Council. The Building Code variance must be acted upon by the City Council, which has the sole authority to amend the Code. Section 506(b) of the 1979 Uniform Building Code, requires that a building the size of Albertson's be surrounded by yards or streets that are at least 60 feet wide. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Variances are Catec_orically Exempt from environmental review. NOTIFICATION: Public Hearing notices have been published in the Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. -2- ANALYSIS: Albertson's would like to increase the size of their store by enclosing the front arcade, and by extending their building 45', into the northerly side yard. This would increase the store's size by 8,208 square feet. Two problems arise when the store is increased in size. First, additional parking is required (1 space for each 100 sq.ft. of public space). The entire shopping center was built to its maximum size with no extra parking being available. Therefore, as it now stan(:'.s, no additions can be added without a parking variance beinc granted. Historically, Alameda County has rarely granted a parking variance. To do so would establish a new precedent regarding parking variances, and it could greatly affect many other properties that would like to expand but do not meet the current. parking standards. Secondly, when the shoping center was initially subdivided, buildings were built on property liner, and special Building Code variances had to be granted by the County to permit the buildings to be located closer to property lines than was, and still is, permitted by the Building Code. The proposed construction would also be closer to the property line than is permitted by the Building Code, thE' previous Building Code Variance, and subsequent Declaration of Encumbrances. (See attachments). The Albertson's some existing p parking for the parking spaces. parking spaces, shopping center required by the addition, due to its proposed elimination of irking, and the City requirement to add new addition, will result in a net deficit of 57 The entire shopping center is now shy 48 therefore, if the add=_tion is permitted, the would have 105 fewer parking spaces than is parking requirements ;e.g. a 20% reduction). A. Parkinq Variance There are five primary parking variance issues that need to be addressed when determining the validity of this variance request: 1. Is it reasonable to grant a parking variance for this shopping center'? 2. What precedent would granting a parking variance set for the City? 3. Is it appropriate to grant a variance for parking or should the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance be studied instead? -3- 4. Will the Albertson's variance have a negative impact on the center's use, appearance, circulation, or site planning? 5. Should a parking study be undertaken before this or other parking variance requests are acted upon. Taking each questions individually: 1. Is it reasonable to grant a parking variance for the Dublin Plaza shopping center in order to permit Albertson's to expand? In their variance application, Albertson's states that its Dublin store is at a competitive disadvantage because of its current size, and that other major stores (Alpha Beta and Fry's) have closed their doors because their facilities were non-competitive. Albertson's has also indicated that the other property owners in the center do not object to the variance request. Field observations show that the center has more than enough parking space available for the present tenants. The amount of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance is computed on a sliding scale such that larger stores are required to have proportionally more parking than smaller stores. It is typically the reverse. Given the mix of uses in the center, and that the customers of different stores tend to shop at different hours, there appears to be sufficient available parking to allow Albertson's to expand without creating a shortage of parking. 2. What precedent would granting the parking variance have on the City? Since Alameda County has rarely granted a parking variance, and since allowing more construction without related parking could allow each development in the City to expand, the granting of this variance could establish a significant precedent. If the City supports this variance, it is crucial that specific findings to suppport the decision be made. Also, the City must expect that several other such requests are likely to follow. 3. Is it appropriate to grant a variance for parking, or should the Zoning Ordinace be changed instead, to require proportionally less parking than is new required? The City of Dublin is just now gaining an understanding of the cause and effect of the regulations that it inherited from Alameda County. Changes are, and will be, made to these regulations so that they will better fit the interests of the City. This process may be a lengthy one. We are not inclined to put a moritorium on develcpment during this -4- transition period. It is therefore desirable, though it is time-consuming, to work within the existing regulations and use them as best. we can, to achieve our long-term objectives. Thus, it is appropriate at this time to utilize the variance process. It is, however, highly preferable to amend the parking regulations directly, rather than use a variance procedure, and review requests on a case-by-case basis. Amending the parking requirements should be a future consideration for the Planning Commission. The Commission should, of necessity, look at all the parking requirements. 4. Will the Albertson's variance have a negative impact on the center's use, appearance, circulation, or site planning? The expansion will not change the shopping center's land use mix, or balance. It will, hcwever, as proposed, have a negative impact on the pedestrian circulation, and it does not include any measures which would improve the appearance of even its portion of the center. The proposal includes enclosing the covered arcade in front of the store. People would then be required to walk in the driveway to get past the store. This is not desirable. It also changes a major design component of the center--the covered walkway, which provides a pleasing visual space to walk in and shelter from sun and rain. Additionally, the rear of the store does not contain a trash enclosure and subsequently is cluttered with considerable debris, crates, carts and the like. It is Staff's position that, as incremental changes are made to existing developments, the City should, within reason, seek to have improvements made to them which enhance their appearance, use, circulation, etc. This will, over time, assure the City that its commercial development continues to be competitive. While it can be said that such concerns should be left solely up to the property owner, experience shows that City involvement is often needed, and that such involvement produces advantageous results. It is therefore recommended that a parking variance which would allow enclosing, and thereby eliminating the covered arcade not be approved. Further design recommendations are contained in the Recommendation section of this report. 5. Should a parking study be undertaken before this variance is acted upon? As indicated above, we are in a time of transition and are working within the regulations that are now in place. The parking question involves more than just this -5- development. We have sufficient information, though it is somewhat subjective, to indicate that the parking variance can be acted upon at this time. It does, however, seem appropriate to ask Albertons's, as the benefactor of the variance which, in fact, involves the entire shopping center, to contribute to a traffic study on a fair share basis, when the City elects to undertake such a study. B. Building Code Variance The Alameda County Building Official, Mr. Vic Taugher, has indicated that while he is not generally in favor of modifying the Building Code, the circumstance of this application are such that he would not oppose the granting of a variance to allow the sideyard expansion, as proposed. There is ample room between existing structures and the proposed construction to limit their potential damage, were the addition to catch on fire. The existing building and proposed addition are of masonry construction and will be fully sprinklers d. The size of the building, with the addition added, will not pose any other Building Code problem. PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council that the parking and Building Code va:-fiance requests be approved to permit Albertson's to expand by 6,750 sq.ft. to the north side of the existing store (within the sideyard only), as shown on Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. Written statements shall be filed with the City Planning Department, prior to issuance of a Building Permit, that show that all of the property owners in the Dublin Plaza center agree with the parking variance and Building Code variance. Such agreement is also to be evidenced in the amended and certified Declaration of Encumbrances. 2. When Albertson's applies for the necessary Site Development Review, their plans shall include: a) an enclosed trash area of sufficient size to contain their trash and miscellaneous refuse needs; b) several additional trees are to be installed within Albe:-tons's lot to break up the visual expanse of asphalt and create a buffer to adjacent development; c) additional provisions shall be made for pedestrian and vehicular circulation access, including, but not limited to, access to the GEMCO property, should GEMCO agree to provide a connection on their property. -6- 3. The addition is to be compatible in design and materials to that of the existing structure, so as to blend with it. All mechanical equipment and. the like is to be screened from view. 4. A safe pedestrian walkway shall to constructed from Amador Valley Blvd. to the Albertson's store. FINDINGS: The following findings should be made in approving the variances as recommended above: 1. There are special circumstances including the site's configuration, lot line locations, and the location of the pedestrian arcade, and vehicular circulation patterns, which restrict the Albertson's ability to expand in an economical manner, which is available to similarly zoned property, were additional parking spaces available. 2. The granting of the variance will not be a special privilege which is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, given that the other property owners within the Dublin Plaza shopping center agree with the granting of the variances, and that reciprocal parking arrangements cause Albertson's parking to be viewed as part and parcel to that cf the entire center. 3. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to persons or property in the area or to the public welfare, since pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns will allow safe travel through the center, and since fire protection is provided. Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Plan Assessor Map Building Code Variance #136999 Amendment to Declaration of Encumbrances 1/19/71 Attachment A - Variance application -7- r . • 4.? j : r r-• .. ?/ + - rl 1 n r r - r, r',N DOUGHERT Y RANCH - SUBDIV PLOT W (sk 15 Pg,17 200' PARCEL MAP 325 ceK 54 Pg ,) P.M. 518 (Rk6i p9.70) "_PM. 2102 (Rk.97Pq.2Q) PARCEL MAP 385 (Bk. 58 PM. 2522 105/52 210 ?_? Vie ><E V`?AY >Ir+ ACFC AC - 3490 !a;2 1 • I a s.s ?-' 6 S C•3 r , -77-1 1 ;?5 94AC- Q_? APT Xylem. , +1 PM 5.6 04` 333 AC 5 -z-I Z-1 16- = n' • p?' C - 7-1 05 70 Ac. q M 1w ' ? w •- I r ?. C 2442 e C Z? as 1,? ? x ?j-6 ^•''" ,? ? =,'+.•.e '? - I C Zip 9 : o TL c F,j fist jPM262z v -520o r' I LO-3 ,,?.e OU }GPLAZAI /L3 3Cq pOR 18,.E C rt1?; I . s v'6 (ID 2.62,4c.-tf am ? Pw2b:z e!? .rv ?i sa. .?? A -of . . f ? + C-3344 Cis ?I: .c,r'i9 , 3/ 1 .461 1 "* c 3 344 1 ?? a 1500 4: 4 , -.4- 0 c o O ?? AC 339.r 9.32ac. f //.97.oc. i '1 ice- !5 C-46X G4x p.RAMCM P. 0114C t rPl w 5 - LQ r? ?( f 1 c? • f M , O l A 1 N` • p J Sr v v ?? ? ? ? ! Ar, r. /o f•+ .5 F? IZr Pt+A» 1? Pf/321 41 o r•ILS"W -fr/ Js? ?tX/fo ?uZ62t c- 134=0y/Ac. ?1? 4 5 Dj tI 2AG± ,vro ,` ••w (".34 5(o C 3oGG i ` e9 C 2441 ?v e C •2927 C S Z .? jIj ? I 7 .rn ? ? L ??, ,•? . it 1-0 /??.? ?'f0%)r'Il•N c. .7 c34- yl CI ? °? = s z? ? ?• , ° ?- parcels c5 C . 16`T'i 8.46,4c, t ?') c --t 171 J, •s„ ` C 3r 83 r> / o 277 o,J n O. SS Ac. V- 5 S o ` t V- ?5 73 PC P-77 61, 'To Jr 8!?/?'? VL :, • z ti tip S3 r •?_ '. 4/`1gD. V. OAF 0 5"4c JJ /L77o/J li-...,.. ./!• Y .. 'J??•,.fC fl, /f/jl`_ "'t °, ?' .' ?? U 2,oo' r'o!Z 77c.J - _ ------ 1 19 h v-4) 0 1/ 7 ,. , S-slo A. Z-77 1" 3? }2 i r.j b c' ` -• --- -_ - _ _ - Act, A1??? rs? ?? r 3<;ac C3 2 i J ez _? r, wry/r,n c A Approved as to Form s= -- RICFY, -0 J. t400RE, County Couiccl By .............. ...:..: ........:....:.....Deputy T1417 i;()ARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF. ALAIMEDA,' STATE OF CALIFORNIA rU,cion of "upervrsor..- ................. :?oI ......................... .Seconded by Supervisor-----•--.._....:..._...Ft OCt. :.... ?r- n fi°approved by the folloNving vote, boz-t_• .Iran =n.,'. R _-zetQ S,•r.eene and..C?°.i.xrr?an..Mux hX..-..5........ Supers kors .................... ..lion......... .......... _............................. L?cused or Absent: Supervisors --......1101. ::....................._.......•.......... `...-......::............:......................._..._...................... T•HE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUAfBER... ?3.?1..?? ;?_ .. G17' VARJAA" ES WIiERFAS, 'the owners of certain property as hereinafter indicated and as k k!' shown on the Parcel Map 521, raarked E;:hibit A, and on file with this Board of Supervisors, have proposed to construct a shopping center located at Regional Street and Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin., California,'to'be` known as Dublin Plaza Shopping Center: g Q, V Owner _.. ,., .., Parcel No. Sutter iii 11 Development Corporation 3 and 5 S1:a:•,,7s O ay Legs Drug Stores 4 Albei-tson's, Inc. 2 and E 1Y 11EiXZ,%3, because 0 .`Such bepara.Lu. uwrlev6iil o Vt.C.LUttC;G:J tou i.i.l ,L -,,_i-_i-0f, .L1i6 sections of the 'Alameda County Building Code are. necessary zfor the, proposed project: (1) Section 5044 Table 5-A and Section 1103 - which prohibit oi)cninrs in exterior .walls which are less than 5' from property Lines, and _ require walls which arc less ,than',10' fr61r. -;property ;lines to be oi. one-hour fire-resistive construction. (2) Section 506(b),- which perrd.ts unlimited floor areaif the building is surrounded by yards' or streets 60'- wide and provided with en. automatic fire extinguishing system. (3) Section 509 which permits arcades or covered walkways connecting buildings, providing there are-no openings between the arcade and the building except doors. and W11;?tZ?AS, the Sutter Iiill'De??elo ,mcnt Corporation, on behalf of thci.. above- .. t ? 4 • .. rr,er.tioned property owners, did. request variances from such condition; arid" " 41IIEREAS,` good cause appca ing to this Board oi' Siipervi5ors,that siic;h vc:: ianor;s to the Alameda County Building Code should be •?nted to Sutter Iiill Dov?.lop,• ent Corporation' .,Ic, Pay Less nrt,1,Gtores a n{1 Albertsorn' s,; Inc. i;i connection with Uaid proposed ,Dublin I'lcz1 M oppix1g Cc?iter; ,p, r r fc- r , GRIT i VARIANCES ` • PAGE 2 NOW; TIMItE ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sutter Hill Development Corporation, Skaggs Pay Less Drt Stores and Albertson's. Incl. be and they are hereby .granted variances to the provisions of Section 5C4, Table 5-A, Section 1103, Section 506(b) and Section 509 of the Alameda County Building Code in j` t connection with said proposed Dublin Plaza Shopping Center located at Re`ional Street and.Anador -Valley Boulevard in Dublin,' California; .'subject., however, to the following conditions: `. 1.,_ A 60 ?., clear yard be maintained around the buildings "as indicatcd 'in - green on the site plan labeled Exhibit B on file with this Board of Supervisors. 2. That no openin,,ss be peniitted in the ext,,rior walls of the buildings as indicated in black on said ENhibit B. 3. That all the buildings on Parcels 2, 3, and 5 be provided with automatic fire sprinklers. 4. That the use of the buildings be limited to F "Occupancies as defined in the Alameda County Building Code (Drinking, or Dining' EstablislLment) with an occupant load of rlore than 100 not -permitted. 5. That parcels ,2, '- 3,. 5 be _ cncLL.inc.; 'red by . n a1_ ce e,;:e . 4 and ' ?r,, ucccatanle to the Alameda County Courity `Counsel 'which 'kiil'assurc compliance - with the foregoing conditions` said .'a recr:ent. to be` recorded "arid run with the 'land.- .. • .:.... ...,. t, .? ,? ,:, ? ? .,.. _. , and BE IT FURTHER RZSOLVIID that the County Building Official be and he is hereby authorized and directed to issue the necessary permit,or permits accordingly, subject to the foregoing conditions. 1 CERTIFY THAT .. JI I •' ,? ^,?, RECT COPY OF ii FESOLUT10,\1 A,-VP-,ED BY THI: BOARD OF SUPcP.YlSU.ZS , ALAMEDA COUNTY.. .., , JACK K. POOL, CLER 0= THE BOARD OF SUPERYISORS OYr y 47 r; - 13 4 , Y z a` rf t Z't IC,ORDEP-at REQUEST OF, 0A e pt,_./_f,_.. PAin. p.Ast Y 11-- ?.5?59 i H F:279-0 I M :Cr? F E B 19 1971- AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF ENCUMBRANCES Index the A.rfreement and the Conzent OFFICIAU RECORDS: OF F"MEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIN UACK G. BLUE , FOUNT.Y. RECOROLR THIS AMENDMENT is made and Entered into this f I f day of ? L('t a,p 19'71, by and between ALBERTSON'S, INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter ?t D referred to as "Albertson's"), SKAGGS PAY LESS DRUG STORES, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Pay Less"), and SUTTER HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Sutter Hill"). Albertson's, Pay Less and Sutter Hill Development Company, the predecessor in interest of Sutter Hill with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment, are parties to a certain Declaration of Encumbrances dated November 26, 1969,,and recorded on December 23, 1969, at Reel 2537, Image 673, Official Records of Alameda County, California. Said Declaration of Encumbrances contains certain covenants, conditions and restrictions concerning the development and operation of the real property described therein. The interest of Sutter.Hill Development Company in the portions of the subject property owned by it has since been conveyed by grant deed to Sutter Hill. The parties now wish to amend said Declaration of Encumbrances to conform the development of the subject real property to.requirements imposed by Alameda County, California. In consideration of the foregoing, and•of the mutual undertakings hereinafter set forth, it is hereby agreed ;. as follows-.' 1. Subject Property. The property subject to the i provisions of this Amendment consists of Parcels 2, 3,•4 and SuEjQr 11 ? ? Cc '1. 2 o (5 C u.,tit i ?t 0 CO -S,4,1 C S-DO 1 TO ?'a- -I Cr ?t CL , -polio 5 as set forth on that certain Parcel Map filed in Book 61, Page 89 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Alameda, State of California. 2. Open Area Around Buildings. During the term of this Amendment there shall be no construction, install- ation or introduction in any manner of any building or other structure within a distance of 60 feet of the perimeter of the Building Areas of Parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 as such areas ,are defined in the Declaration of Encumbrances; provided, however, that this prohibition shall not apply to sidewalks, landscape planters, curbs in the automobile parking lot, lighting fixtures, loading platforms, or other installations directly related to the buildings to be erected on Parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 and not constituting independent and self- sufficient structures. The area which is to remain open as provided in this Paragraph 2 is shaded in green on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Openings in Exterior Walls of Buildings. During the term of this Amendment, there shall be no openings in the exterior walls of buildings within ten (10) feet of the boundary lines of Parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 in those areas indicated in red on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. Automatic Fire Sprinklers. During the term of this Amendment, all buildings constructed on Parcels 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 shall be furnished and equipped with operative automatic fire sprinklers. 5. Occupancy Limits. During the term of this Amendment, occupancy of the various establishments (commercial 2. 71- 18,959 PLI:2 790 lfr?kw or otherwise) situated within premise:3 located on Parcels 2, 31 4 and/or 5 shall be limited to "Type F" occupancy (including the special limitation contained therein limiting occupancy of drinking and dining establishments to less than one hundred (100) persons) as such occupancy is de- fined in the Alameda County Building Code. A copy of the applicable provisions of such Building Code as presently' in effect is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. 6. Term of Amendment. The provisions of this Amendment shall remain in force for a period equal to the term of the aforementioned Declaration of Encumbrances, or until such earlier time as all of the parties hereto shall mutually agree upon changes herein; provided, however, that no such changes shall be effective for any purpose unless they conform to then existing provisions of law applicable to the development and operation of the subject property. 7. Effect of Amendment Upon Original Declaration. Except to the extent that this Amendment supersedes or is inconsistent with the Declaration of Encumbrances between the parties dated November 26, 1969, said Declaration re- mains unmodified and in full force and effect, and the pro- visions of said Declaration are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. 8. Successors and Assigns. This Amendment and all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein r provided are intended to create privity of contract and privity of estate with and among each Df the parties hereto. Said covenants, conditions and restrictions are intended to ac?,?r?I,i.?:?a??? oqulL...Iblo tiol-viLlIelos acid covenants running with the respective properties of each of t'-ie parties as described F RE:2700 1!,J:V - herein. This Amendment shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, repre- sentatives, tenants, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the day, month and year first above written. The undersigned owner of Parcel 2 hereby join's in the foregoing Amendment to Declara- tion of Encumbrances and agrees to be bound by the terms thereof. SEVENTH CHELTENHAM ASSOCIATES,. a New York partnership. A Partner The undersigned Trustees under that certain Indenture of Mortgage and Deed of Trust dated as of October 15, 1970 covering Parcel 2 hereby joins in the execution of and consents to the foregoing Amendment to Declaration of Encumbrances. THE NATIONAL SHAWMUT BANK OF BOSTON, s '.Crustee. PRE, IWO W. B. Wadland, As Trustee ALBERTSON' S , INC. _ - A 1 i ?• ,z, By t?..xL 'Tice President,, By Secretary ' SKAGGS PAY LESS DRUG STORES B -Ga SUTTER HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By \ / SIDc:A/T A12 4. 11- :1 u19)1} C, APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Attachment A #1. When the center was originally approved, all site area was maximized with building and parking. Subsequently, all additions to the center must generate additional parking in a ratio to the store addition.' Because of the center's maximized parking, additional parking cannot be provided on-site to allow corresponding additions to the center building area. The facility is at a competitive disadvantage because of its current size. Other major facilities in the area (Alpha Beta and Fry's) have had to close because their facilities were non-competitive. There are no alternate undeveloped locations within the City to allow us to relocate a larger facility. Additionally, our surveys indicate that approximately 5-10% of our customers walk to the store. #2. Because so much of the existing parking Facilities are not currently utilized to their maximum extent, a granting of the requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges for us, this center, or other properties in the vicinity. #3. By granting the variance, it will enable a business to. expand its physical structure, thus better enabling the store to serve the local community in the quality and quantity of its services. As the existing parking is not fully utilized, we believe the spirit of the zoning ordinance to provide adequate parking will be maintained.