If you’re not happy about a proposed 7-Eleven on Olympia’s Westside (see here, here and here), know that lots of other folks around the world may be in a similar boat. According to CNN Money, last year 7-Eleven surpassed 40,000 locations, which is more retail outlets than McDonald’s. Yet 7-Eleven is still adding a new store every three-and-a-half hours. This aggressive expansion is playing out as at least one industry analyst wonders whether the convenience store market may have reached a point of saturation, reports Beth Kowitt.
This is why the proposed construction of a 7-Eleven on the corner of Harrison and Division represents a greater risk than converting a competitor’s store. For example, 7-Eleven has recently announced the purchase of 28 stores and sites from Pacific Convenience & Fuels LLC, 55 Sam’s Mart stores and 51 ExxonMobil stores and sites.
However, according to a store locator, 7-Eleven — which is a subsidiary of a Japanese-owned holding company — currently has only five stores in the Olympia area and none on Olympia’s Westside.
Portland, Oregon a target for expansion
KATU.com reports that Portland is among the markets that 7-Eleven has embarked on an “accelerated growth plan.” Last year the Woodstock Neighborhood Association unsuccessfully fought a proposed store because “they thought it would bring an increase in crime and traffic. The location is also the gateway to the Woodstock neighborhood and they didn’t think a 7-Eleven convenience store would set the right tone,” reports Shannon L. Cheesman.
Now 7-Eleven has announced plans to build new stores in the Vernon and St. John’s neighborhoods — and more could be on the way. The announced sites are zoned for commercial storefront, reports Cheesman.
The city’s Office of Neighborhood Involvement requires convenience stores to come up with a “Good Neighbor Agreement” that addresses issues such as loitering, alcohol use, litter control, neighbor relations and landscaping, reports OregonLive.com. However, the agreement need not be approved by the neighborhood in order for the store to be built, reports KATU.com’s Cheesman.
There goes the neighborhood
Other communities where a 7-Eleven has recently faced resistance include Nutley, New Jersey; New Haven, Connecticut; and West Islip, New York.
The stories all have a certain sameness about them. Residents tend to be caught flatfooted by a proposal and flounder around trying to understand the land-use laws and rules that may apply to a given situation. And despite sometimes heated debate, the stores invariably go through. One might argue that zoning provides the developer with more protection than a neighborhood, e.g., unless a comprehensive plan is written tightly and is in sync with current zoning.
So the 7-Elevens keep sprouting. And, at best, neighborhoods such as Portland’s Woodstock get some type of accommodation, such as minimizing signage and a corporate donation to the neighborhood association.
“So it has not been all bad,” a Woodstock neighborhood association spokesperson told KATU.com of the recently opened store. “Still, we do not find 7-Eleven a vital part of the neighborhood at all.”
Emmett O'Connell
February 19, 2012
Do you not consider the 7-Eleven just south of 101 to be on the westside?
olympiaviews
February 19, 2012
Emmett, I didn’t because it has a Tumwater address . . . and that seems to be a pretty different neighborhood, both physically and culturally, from Olympia’s Westside.
Rob Richards
April 5, 2012
UPDATE: I just got this in an email:
—————
I have just returned from an excruciating but ultimately triumphant
one hour reading of Judge Sutton’s epic decision on the 7-Eleven land
use case. In minute detail, she laid out the record and her reading
of the law to reverse the Hearing Examiner’s approval of the project
on ALL THREE matters before her.
I did not take notes and am not competent legally to state the
significance of this in strictly procedural terms. The prevailing
party (Dan Leahy and attorney Robert Shirley) will draw up an order
to be submitted to the City and 7-11. I will leave that for others
more qualified than I to explain.
The judge found for the plaintiffs on the following three issues:
the need to conform to City codes regarding a proposed new right turn
lane from Division onto Harrison; the failure of the proposed one
story structure to conform to current zoning regulations; the
requirement in the transportation code of the City to do a Traffic
Impact Analysis.
I assume Rob Shirley or Dan Leahy and Bethany Weidner will provide
all the great details. I think the community owes a huge thanks to
them and all who contributed to this appeal for a victory that goes
far beyond this one project.
I find this decision to be of huge consequence for the detail of the
Judge Sutton in reaching her decision and for a decision that lays
out squarely the errors, oversights, and misinterpretations of law
by both City staff and the Hearing Examiner. This was no ambiguous
or highly nuanced decision. It was clear and it was well documented.
My only regret is that Judge Sutton was not sitting in our appeal of
the Port’s flagrant violation of the SEPA law on the log export
facility. Her demeanor, her detail, her clearly laid out logic were
in stark contrast to the flippant and condescending ruling of Judge
Tabor in our appeal. C’est la vie.
Time to celebrate and ponder what this means for how the City
conducts its land use planning and regulation.
—————-