Planning Commission OKs designs for building next to Draeger's

Granted, there are only sub-optimal solutions for the Draeger's loading zone conundrum–-but adding delivery trucks to the already busy mix at Menlo Ave and University is a terrible idea. It's hard to understand how staff could recommend it, especially after the unanimous and full-throated objection of the Complete Streets Commission.

The best-case scenario would be for Draeger's to max out the use of their private lot (which is never full) and dedicate parking lot space behind the store for a loading zone. This keeps the ~900 monthly deliveries out of the way of traffic.

Draeger's is Absolutely Essential to Menlo Park! In my mind there is No question about that. Why can't the City take the property by eminent domain (pay the owners "fair and reasonable" compensation) in the interests of the general public and lease it back to Draeger's or lease/sell it to Draeger's over time to ensure that the cost to the City is minimal or zero and the benefit to the community is that it keeps the Best grocery store in the United States. I think that the City needs to make a deal happen. In this case, the City's interests are entirely aligned with the best interests of Draeger's desire to continue to serve the residents of Menlo Park.

So Draegers is opposed to a land owner building on their property because it cannot be flexible with its deliveries? What nonsense
Most large business receive deliveries after hours, late nights or early morning. Can Draegers do the same? Why not?
There is a large parking lot across the street that gets little use, can Draegers use that lot? Why not? If the empty lot was and is still important to Draegers maybe they should make an offer to buy the property so they can continue their deliveries from their preferred location.
Draegers is a good resource for the community but this arguement is lacking any common sense. The property owner is entitled to build on this property without restriction and complaints from Draegers. This is a great example of why Little can get done in our neighborhoods. Everyone has a voice in everyone’s business.

Draegers could trade their parking lot across the street for the property next to them. Parking across the street is inconvenient for customers.

Draegers had the right to negotiate with the lot's owners YEARS ago and couldn't come to business terms.

it then asked for SPECIAL permission to use the parking lot and side door as a loading area (and were granted that permissions). now they are complaining again.....

they chose not to spend $ to get what they really needed...and blew it. that alone should make them exempt from complaining.

Roy

Looks like an attractive development on a long time vacant downtown lot ("eyesore"). Looks like the owner is fully compliant with the Specific Plan. Looks like Draeger's enjoyed a special arrangement for over a decade it knew would come to end. Love Draeger's but I got to side with the lot owner on this one. This is Draeger's problem to solve with NO special treatment from the City that negatively impacts the property owner. Offer to purchase the property and if it's not enough, live with your best alternative.

How can you call the vacant lot an eyesore when it's surrounded by a brick wall? I would rather look at the brick wall than have an oversized (three stories) office building in that location. NO MORE OFFICE BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN, PLEASE!!!

I really like Mark's suggestion about swapping properties.

More back story, Roy. I was on the Planning Commission when this dispute first emerged.

The small lot was leased by Draeger's as their loading dock. It was zoned for parking. During the mindset of Internet Boom I, the parties couldn't reach an agreement. On the other hand I don't think the small lot was ever rezoned (until apparently this request. Many years have gone by.

The problem was swept under the MP zoning rug when the city granted Draeger's use of a few car spots of public lot for their loading zone.

This site was rezoned by the adoption of the DSP.

Here is what the DSP requires for this site:
Business and Professional office (inclusive
of medical and dental office) shall not
exceed one half of the base FAR or public
benefit bonus FAR, whichever is
applicable."

And this is what the Staff Report on this project :
"Complies: Downtown zone allows for 2.0
FAR and a maximum of 1.0 FAR for
professional office. Site area is 6,936 and
professional office use is 6,610 SF per
A1.3."

It's laughable to say Dragers is essential to MP and that the city should do anything to solve the issue Dragers caused by not planning very well. Using eminent domain to take land so a very expensive grocery store can get it's deliveries when it wants is ludicrous. Can't believe that was even suggested.

@giovanni - are you really so opposed building anything, you are suggesting that an obviously abandoned lot surrounded by a brick wall and chain link gate choked with weeds is a better visual than a new building right in the middle of town? Really?

I suggest that Draegers negotiate a lease with the City for the entire two parking rows adjacent to the store from 5 AM to 10 AM M-F. That would allow drive through deliveries and would eliminate those trucks parking on nearby streets.

Given the price of property in Menlo Park the City could probably negotiate a very good rate.

I'm with Mper. Draegers is hardly "essential" to Menlo Park. They are nothing like the market they were 24 years ago when I moved here. The products are nowhere near the quality they used to be, but Draegers continues to charge as if it were. Bottom line, they're a ripoff. The only time I go there, which is rarely, is when I'm looking for some specialty item I can't find at Safeway. And I'm no fan of Safeway. Standing in line for 20 minutes just to check out a few items is inexcusable. But, the added cost at Draegers simply isn't worth the time savings.

Peter, I am not sure, but I think Draegers actually owns part of the parking lot. I know they paid into the downtown park fund which is why they can offset their required spaces.

The lot in question did NOT pay into that fund and must therefor be "self sustaining" WRT to parking. meaning the first floor will be TINY to accommodate all the required parking for the building.

Roy