Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0471.092Oc~obor 22, 1992 HONORA~lE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Ground Floor (GF) Zone District -Referral to the Planni~g Commission of a Request for Further CDnsideratiqn of General 8usin~ss Offices as a Conditional Use Members of tne Cou"cl1: Rgport in~ 6 T~is report transmits requests from Phyllis Munsey and Micki Schneider tnat the City give further consideratfan t~ allowing, as conditional uses, offices in t~e Ground Floor (GF) zone district. Staff r~co~nds referral of this issu! to t~e Planning Commission, Background In the attached May 22, 1992 staff report to the Planning Camrnissl0n~ staff proposed araeridment (If the Grour.d Floor (SF) zone district regulations to a.dd Si series of conditional uses. The Planning Commission ccnsldered this item on May 27, 1991, As describod in the attached June II, 1992, staff report (C~R: 294:92), the Commiss;on~ after approvin9 three arr~ndments to the slaff recommendation, failed to recommend approval of the change in zoning district regulations. Staff incorporated two of the Commission's changes, including elimination of general busyness offices as a conditional use, and rec~mmended £it1 Ccunc,l approval of the loning text amendment. On June 15, the (~ty Council approved the text amendments as recommended by staff. Attached are Septem~er 22, 1992. letters from Phyllis Munsey ind Micki Schneider requesting re-e.xamination of the oechion to delete general business offices from the list of conditional uses. RecO!m!eodat1on Staff recommends that the City Council ad~pt a motion referring to the Planning Commission the issue of adding gen!ral bus1ness offices as a condjtional use to the Ground Floor (~FJ zone district. Respectfully submitted, ~md£-l~ .. KENNETH R, SCHREIBER ~ Director of P1anning and C~nity [nv;ronment CMR:47J :92 ~~ JU E fLEMING Interim City Manager wez t nZS1T'" -"P o\t t ochtaen t s: 9/22/92 letter from Phy11i. Munsey 9/22/~2 letter from Micki Schneider Excerpt of 6/15/92 City Council Hinutes Excerpt of 5/21/92 Planning Commission Minutes 6/11(9Z Stoff Report (C~R:Z94:9Z) 5/22/92 Staff Report cc: Planning Commission Phyllis Munsey Mick.i Schneider Chamber of Commerce (Susan franK) deLemos Properties rm ~ r, IE nu ill) P. o. 'Boct 555 -PaW .'II.o. Calif<mia .q~.lO~ ~ ~:.P ~2 1992 DePARTMENT Of PLANNING CITy OF PA~O A~ TO Mr. Bill z'mer Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto. CA 9430 I September 22. 1992 REF: Ground Floor Zone District Text Amendments Council Decision of 6115192 and my letter of 7123;92 Dear MI'. ZaneT; This letter is to again request that the above .e:ferenccd Council decision be "'Considered. I am attaching my letter of July 23. 1992 which also requested this matter be recJnsidered and states an my reasoning in that regard. I am a bit confused because it appears froIli. my Ia~t CG!1 ... ~tion \\ith you that perhaps you never received your copy of the July letter. As you know, we have recentJy found a tenant for the space at issue at 522 Ramona: but r believe the ordinance continues to be an unfair one and that the effected property owners were not properly advised of the wording alterations between the time it l\."aS presen ted to the Planning Commission and the Council. I fumly believe in fairness this matter should be reconsidered. ce: Gary Fazino Carol Jansen ~en Schreiber Nancy Lytle ~7{yrel~'1 ~~ His Honor Gary Fazino The Honorable Palo Aho Cit\' Council Palo Alto Cit\' Hall - 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo A1!o, CA 94301 , J-.,( . -, deLernos Propcnies 535 Ramona Street P.O. Box 555A Palo Ai!o, CA 94302 July 23, 1992 Re: Grrumd floor zen, djWct texi amendmen~uncil decision of June 1 ~ ! 29::: The purpose of this letter is to ask you to re-examine the text amendments you made ro fbe ground floor retail orrli.'l.aJlce in your June 15th meeting with the p:)ssibility of adding an additional conditional u.~; specifica1!y~ General Business Office. We are me owners of the historic building at 520--526 Ramona Streel T11e space at 522 Ramona Srreel is the subject property. One enters by going down the wa.J.k between Chantilly Restaurant and Double Rain bow Ice Cream Parlor. The space occupies the back: comer of the building and bas .... 'indows looking out onro the dumpsters in the alley behind Burger King and Copeland's S~rting Goods as well as the .Em~n Street parking lot. It was my distinct impression while anending the above mentioned council meeting t1>at it was your intenriOtllO give some relief from the. District Retail Only Zoning ordmance to those of us with hmiteci or-no street eJ..-posuI"e, It is T!OW clear to me that me conditional uses permitted by this council action are still very restrictive. Tne conditionai uses which are DO~.' pern::rined are not likely to he attractee 1'..) 520 Ramona with no street fronLiilge. Businesses which fall under the definirion of ·'B1.1Siness Servi-c-es H need better d.rlve-t..--p or parking access a.."'ld street visibilit),. The only potential tenant for the space] have found is Santa. Clara Land Title Co .. They desLrcd a rwo­ year lease beginning July 13th. This sounded ideal, glv.en the current economic climate, New I am told I cannot lease to them because they are classified as Ge:n~ Business Office. .' The Planning Commission's logic in excluding "GenUa.! Business Offlce~ froJ:l the pennined conditional uses was: " ... office uses present facades that are not conduci ve to and tend to detract from the v:i tal. pedestrian-oriented atmosphere. The operative word here is "facade". We do not have a "facade".·-ifwe did, we would..,'t have.a problem. No one can locate 522 Ramona Street. let alone care wh2t is or is not going on inside that space. We cannot even f211d I location where we can make th~ "For Lease" sign vLsible from any st.""t::Ct so. 7 His Honor Gar)' Fazino The Honorable Palo Alto Ci ty CouncD Palo Alto CitY Hall july 23. 199i Page '2 Therefore, 1 would like to ask you to review the tc:(t amendments you passed and. if possible, re-cpen the council action on this item. General Busines:; Office use ne-eds to be a cOlld.!rionally PCrmlued use. or the GF zoning ordmance is c'lI:tl"'emelY unfair to a veT)' llln:ieed numher of uS 1 do not beltev~ you: v..'iH havc many r..ople qualifying for these condItional uses, I would liko: to add that the Seismic upgrade we performed en this b!liJdlr.&::n 1985. coupled with the historic pres.~ation necessa."'Y required us to put large mortgages or. om pmpeny. The s'tT'J:ceural shear walls in the retrofit preclude u;. from ever being able to open the back {S22J space ;0 the scree: frontage (520) space. We did the Se!srnlc work at the City's l'eqUC'i1 and because we believed it [0 be the civic minded thing til do. W(: were no sman enough to apply for flC status for 011..-building in return fOT our historic building "contributions" as the c~rrent developers are doing. Now we are suffering financiaJly with no recourses available to us. II is ver), hard for a lnw-finance.d, non-savv)', srr.all building owner to survlve in tt:J l.i city. ~--~ .• --, ......... -., ~--- 2>PIIWS ~./~-;... ~ p~ ~_ ~ f'~~L ,;{67) }JP-~ 'r-<-'< . jJaA ~f~ 1.f-30/ i(f: L .. ~~~;;;. ;iJdCtd ~)4. P~.L< t..; 6 t L.. : -Y d.-/lL-tu-~~ ~ _h~ ~ Mrf<J £.:e -tl...d t~ ~#<'l /{.L~ ~~ tLt-~ ~ ~~£. ~ ~d-kh;"'-,,-~ ~ .A<.,. 4~ ~'L £ ilA i-I!"~ ~tC4.b w~ cLu ~d ~-~C~_~J~ ~ t ~q ~~~'. J CL!+'_LU<L1i.-I-~ ~ t; -u..w ~ tLMf. u~ r-u.;cU ~ Z; q.-~. 1067 t:~r\'rll:'im ""J: .... Ll' r-.b ""I,, C.illl",.". .. 'il4XlJ r.cH',324-11!;J; • CITY COUNCIL ML"lUT&i ~/~ /'19; PUBLIC HF~: Planning ~ommiSSio~nds to the city ccuncil denial of a Z;oning Ordinance text amendment to the Grouna Floor (GF) Zone District regulations 8. Associute Planner Joe Colonna said the proposed amendment to the G~ound Floor CGP) Zone District would allow additional uses pursuant to the approval of a conditional use peroit. The uses would include business or trade schools, co::nmercial recreation, day care, financial services, and general business services. Staff had eliminated office use as conditional use in the GF due to the strong opposition from t.."te Planning CO:!n1nission. Staff proposed additional fil'_dings relating to uniquenE=s~ of the access, design of the GF space, or location o:f the property within t..'le GF Zone District in combination with the building design to ensure that the use permits in the GF Zona District were limited to unusual case~. The Planning cOiIIJIIission T s motion to reccmmend approval of the amendment with three modifications failed on a 2-4 vote~ staff recommended the Council adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce the Ordinance J ~hich had been amended to incorporate the Planning commission's deliberations, for a ~i~st reading. Planning Commissioner Pam Karsh said t,he Planning commissioners unanimously agreed to endorse the staff's efforts to inject some way to provide fle~ribility to downto\r.-n p:-:operty owners. The Planniru~' Commission was unable to craft sufficient changes to the process suggested by the statf to allow it to be put in place within the Zoning code~ The Planning commission believed the GF retail-only zone haa. lJeen very successful during the past six years~ Some flexibility was allowed with the 5 percent trigger. that vo~lQ allow other kinds of uses to go into the GF areas. The Planning commission endorsed both instances in which an exception was allowed to the GF retail, but it was concerned that a crafted process would encourage property owners to exploit the availability to change their properties from the retail requirement on GF~ The Planning commission suggested property owners ~ith a hardship case should apply for a zoning change rather than the process suggested by staft. Vice Mayor McCown said du~ing t'.-he Planning commission fS disc115sion, the statf painted out that the variance process, 'Which required showing harQship, could not be used in that situation4 She queried whether the findings recommended were of the same character as the variance, i4e4, the need to show a hardship circumstance. Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle said the hardship findjng ~as not part of the proposed f indings ~ The need fo!:' it to be an exception­ al and extraordinary circumstance in terms of its location l design, ana context was i~corporated from the variance findings. Council Member Andersen queried what a property o~ner would have to go through under the proposed Ordinance as opposed to a zoning change. Ms. Lytle said the conditional use permit process -was a public hearing process with proper notice of the environmental ~ssessment and it occurred at the Zoning Administrator level. It would only 6/15/92 68-418 , be forwarded to the Planr.inq Commission and the Cour.cil if there vas an appeal of the Zoning 1\dministrator's decision. The standard. zone change ana the Planned Community (PC) zone change vere two mechanisms currently in place for relief from the GF. The standard zone change. involved review and recommendiStion by the Planning Commission and final actio!"', by the council. The PC zone change process vent from the Planning comnd.ssion to the Architectural Review Board, back to the Planning Commission, and then to the Council for final actio!'J. Council Member ~neeler referred to the Planning Commission's minute.s of Hay 27 # 1992 1 and the con"lti2nts troUt Planning corunission­ er Marsh regarding the concern about the possihility of a large amount of proposals being submitted. She querier5. 'Whet.her consider­ ation had been qiven to a mechanism ~hich vould limit the nu=ber or the tiMing of app~ications submitted. Ms. Lytle said a ~eChanis~ for ~imitin9 the applications had not. been consid.erBd because the applications 'Would not be generally applicable to the ~ajority of property owners. It was inten~ed to apply to the few exceptions. Council Member Huber said the proposed Ordinance state~ any request would be et~ective fer five years, and he querie~ wheth~r that vas correct. City Attorney Ariel Calonn$ said that was correct. Council Memb.er Huber clarified if an applicant was granted a hardship, it would be effective for five years. Mr. Calcnne said that was correct. Council Member Huber queried what would happen at the end of five years~ Ms. Lytle said that section was not part of the proposeQ process ·but was ~art of the 5 percent GF exception process that currently existed in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P~~C), and the section had only been renu~bered. Council Member Huber querieQ whether there wa.s to rE'.ason not to put a limit on the e.xception process as opposed to the lile of the building_ Ms~ Lytle said the finding had been tied to the i~provements on the property, but a time limit had not been recommended as was the ex.ception prO<".e.ss in the PAKC_ Council Member Huber c~arified a time limit waula enable the City to reevaluate the situation if the conditions for retail changed. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. council Member Huber queried ~hether the time li~it could be longer than six months. 6/15/92 68-419 Director of Planning and community Environmer,t Ken Sch:t'eiber said the time Ibdt could be longer I ~lthcu9l:i. it 'Would not be recom..1I.end­ ed by statf. Mayor Fazzino declared the Public Hearing open. Elsie Segle, 1319 Bryant street, said the planning restrictions tor the downtown bUsir.ess ovners were too rigid and outdated. The opportuni ties for-building owners should be broadened. The staff's recommendations were reasonable, and she urged the cou~cil to vote favora:bly. Rick Berry, 3)0 Sequoia Avenue, said the GF District had had a good effect on the city as a ~hole but the properties on the fringe had suffered dramatically. He had only heard of three or four properties that were affected and believed o~ly a few vould apply~ An '..e:ffici€nt process 'Was needed which took into consideration the burdens of the propert,y owners. Dan scruggs said the present owners of 167 Hamilton Avenue acquired the pr-operty on October 2, 1985. Th~ Co:nmercial Do· .. ·nto'lm (CD) District and the Gl" regulations 'Wer-e passed .July 28, 1986, and became effective on August 28, 1986. The building had been vacant for six years c!ue to several r-easons, e. g., isolation, lc,w traft'ic:: area, no parking, and because it was designed as an oftice building. A conditional use permit process 'Would allow buildings which had been vacant for-several years to become economically productive, would be an effective way to make an appropriate exception tor those properties which had been impaired by the current GF regulation, and would mitigate the unfair burden on a few property owners who had been forced to leave their ground floors vacant or rent the space at substanda~d rental rate6~ He understood the proposed amendment would continue to maintain the GF District. Del"...l":IY Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, hoped the Counci I would consider the impact that commercial recreation would have on the do"wntown area. counoil Member mJceler understcod that the term commercjal recreat.ion referred to a type of recreat.ion such as a fitness club and a billiard room would be adult entertainment. Ms. Lytle said a billiard parlor was commercial recreation and adult entertainment and requirad in any district in the City a conditicnal use pen!lit and also required a permit through the Police Department for adult entertainment, with an additional regulating mechanism for distance requirements. Steve Jarvis, 978 Addison Avenue, o'Wned the building at 540 University Avenue and had redeveloped the property in 1982 to the specifications for a ground floor pedestrian .?;one. The building had a 63 percent vacancy factor since their original tenant moved to Stanford Shopping Center. There was a hardship to the owners, the tenants, and the City because less 'Was paid into the parking assessment when a property was vacant. He applauded 68-420 --:"'0-?1 WilT-It, the staf('s proposal because there needed to be a long-term method to relieve that type of hard!Ship, and the Cc-uncil needed. to consider the exp~rience over the years and redrawing of some of the bcundaries of the CF District4 Cherry Lyon, 105 N. Balsamina, Portola Val.ley, was the proprietor of a store on Ramona St~eet and had put the business in a location without ",treet frontage.. Her experience showed even if the busin~ss vas a quality retail shop, a retail space could not exist without street frontaqe exposure. Mayor Fazzino declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Mayor Mc~own clarified the current exception process required the eKistence of a certain vacancy rate, that the space had been vacant for six months, and then the exception was q~anted for five years, and she queried whether the vacancy rate requirement yould be a prerequisite for an application for a conditional use permit. Ms. Lytle said it was not made a reqcirement~ Vice Mayor McCown queried how the process would ~ork if there was a 5 percent precondition. xs. Lytle said that had not been reached nor was it expected to be reached. Vice Mayor McCown clarified based on experience, a conditional use permit could not be applied for if there was the same restriction. Mr. Schreiber said the exception process was intended to be available for legitimate retail sites, bu~ the economy was such that there was not enouqb retail demand to fill the space. It was envisioned as a tool that would. be available fer viable retail sites and was the reason for the time limit. The conditional use permit process was being looked at for sites which were not regarded as viable retail, and because of that# there was no time limit attached to the use permit provision~ Vice Mayor McCown clarified if an applicant appliEd for a conditional use permit and staff determined that the circumstances weTe not exceptional to justify it to go out of retail, the other alternative 'Would be to go through the exception process which would only occur if the vacancy rate was in excess of 5 percent~ Mr. Schreiber said that was correct, unless there was an application for a zone change. Council Member Roser.bau:m clarified the GF overlay was in place because the market forces would not produce a viable downtown retail area by themselves, and he queried if the approval gene~ated a large amount of applications, could the regulation be changed in the .future. Mr. Schreiber said the council could always change the regulation. 6/15/92 68-421 • Rt. -. • • -::;_ • J cc·uncil Member Rosenbaum said the Planning Commission indicated a concern that the staff would have the regulatory power, and he queried whether a notification process could be added to indicate that each application and its disposition would be noticed to the council and the Planning Co~ission4 MS4 Lytle said the c..,uncil and planning Commission could be noticed~ and the Planning commission's conclusion after its discussion ~as that it would lead to an informal oversite function that was not as desirable as the separation of the current decision making_ Council Member Rosenbaum s~id conditional use permit applications were not usually reviewed by the Council, and he queried whet~er a notice could be received after the disposition of the application. Ms~ Lytle said reporting would not be a prob)e~, Planning Commissioner Marsh said the Planning commission had high confidence in the ~bilities of the Zoning Administrator but vas concerned that there were no natural advocates tor the retail-only zone4 When applications went to the Zoning Administrator, there was art opportunity for an appeal it there was a controversial decis;.cr.l. In the case of the retail-only zone, the Planning Commission was not convinced that those actions would be carefully followed by people who would be in a position to advocate on a controversial decision. The Planning Commission would not want to be put in an advocacy role4 Council Member Kniss queried vhether a small pe~cent~ge of properties listed would apply. Ms. Lytle said the list showed the specific properties that had approa~~ed staff during the last few years~ She could not think of any additional properties that would be likely applicants4 • KO'l'I:ON: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCoYn, to approve staff recommendation to adopt the Negative Declaration and introdUce the Ordinance, including the word "survey~ in paragraph (1) o:f Section .H3.50.040(a), ,-'hich has been amended to incorporate the Planr.ing C(.}.mmission deliberations regarding elimination of offices and clarification that the use permit applies only to existinq buildings4 Ordinance 1st R.eading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING) RELATWG TO GROUND FLOOR USES IN THE COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT" council Kember Huber suggested the maker and seconder of the motion consider a five-year limit since the th~~st of the GF retail was to encourage retail, but the Council needed to be cognizant of the fact that in particular economic times property owners could not be sitting on vacant buildings. If there 'Was a structure that required the property o~ner to return to the Zoning Administrator 6/15/92 68-(22 GO -17.[71' , .r. / within ~ cr:rtain period 1 there would be an opportunity to review whether or not retail would bE: appr'opriate. AXENDHENT: Council Memcp.r Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to add a five-year time limit as part of ~~e process~ Council Member SlIl'.itian queried -whether staft had any difficulty with that. direction and whQther or not five y-':!ars was a reasonable perioQ ot time for an owner to acortize the costs of i~provements associat~ with one type of use. Ms. Lytle said staff would have to set up a special tracking of the five-year expiration period since \.'se pe!"mits .. ere not currently granted on a time-lapse basis. The monitoring functitm would become easier with ceographic Information Syste~s which would be implemented in the future, but a manual system vould be developed in the meantime for tracking those time fram~s~ Mr~ Calonne clarified the intention behind the use exception process of section 18.50.040 was if t~e two conditions were met, i.e., the 5 percent vacancy rate and the ground floor space being vacant and available for 6 months, then the applicant vculd have the right to the CD uses. If the council ~ent to a time limit in process, the enforcement would be critical. There was a case recently where time-limit Use p~rmits were enforced with less than automatic precision, and the court had decided the city had waived that time provision. Council Member Andersen cp.;.eried the impact the amendment 'Would have on the property owner. Council Member Huber said at the e~d of the five-year period, the property owner would have to go through the Zoning Administrator process aqain. It would be a middle ground rather than a determination that it was for the life of the building~ Council Member Andersen queried what would be the basis for a change in the decision on the part of the Zoning Administrator. Council Member Huber said if there was driving retail, the applicant would r.ot be able to meet the criteria. Council Member Andersen clarified a change in the retail environment for the entire ar~a would change the situation~ vice Mayor McCown was concerned that five years 'Would be a tenn which comports with what a lease might be for a user. She would like regular reports from staff after the conQitional use permit process was in effect. If there was a domino effect moving from the fringes into the downtown area that was cutting against the concept of the GF Zone District, then the Council could determine at that time that the exception process was not working and should be ended rather than the five-year limit. She would rather look at how the process worked in practice and then make a determination ~hether the process was getting the results expected. She would not support the amendment~ 6/15/92 68-423 ._~""_",,,,,.,,,,,, __ _ Council Kember Rosenbaum agreed with Vice Mayor NcCo~n and ~ould prefer to drop the process if it was not ~orking and that it would not be. necessary to use space tor retail unle5~ the market indicated othentise. He wou,ld oppose the amendment. ~ AND SBCOb~ER AGREED TO rNCORPOR~TE INTO ~KE KAIN "OTION ~ l)IRIICT S~An' TO Il!!lPOR~ )'CTrONS AND DISPOSITIONS OF ANY APPLlCATlOII 'l'O nl: CITY COllNeIL. council M.ember lmdersen queried 'Whether there 'Would be a tilDe period that would allo~ f~r an appeal if the application appeared in the packet as an informational item. Ms. L~~~le said the reporting would advise the Council of the final action ana would be beyond the appeal period. council Member Andersen suggested there should be a time period that would allow for the appeal process to take place so the public would have an opportunity to b~ notified of the application. AKEKDHINT: council Member AndersEn moved that the application be available in time for the public to have an opportunity to make an appeal. council Member simitian referred to page 3 of ~he proposed Ordinance which stated ~The city shall conduct the vacancy rate in september" and queried whether it would be an andl~sis or study. Mr~ Schreiber said that ."as part of the existing Ordinance, not part of the proposed changes, and the intent was that there would be a study conducted which woulQ be distributed in september. Council Member Simiti~n said comments had been heard that evening that suggested property owners at the fringe of the area were in a disadvantaqecus position because they ~ere not in the center of a pedestrian-o-rii!:nt-,ed ret-ail area" If the City relied exclusively on location, the fringe area would become smaller and the core area would become smaller, and every year new retail o~ners would say they were on the fringe and were entitled to go through the exception process. He vas comfortable .... i th the staff I s p=-oposal as long as there was a clear understanding that the direction to staff ~ould be that the design linkage needed to be considered, not just the location as discussed Py the Planning commission. Mr. Calonne said the missing 'Word was "survey'" in the existing Ordinance which would be added back into the Ordinance. Council Member Andersen queried if an application ~as approved by the Zoning Administrator, ho~ long would it be before the Council would be notified. 6/15/92 68-424 ----.. --.... ·'liira ..... ·:di1 .... · ·.'.Ii' iii·'.·""' .... · , ... i.o' ------• -.", - I 1 I -.. ' MS~ Lytle said a staff memo ~ould be prepared for the next council packet. Council Member Andersen queriad whether the ap~lication vould be the final approva! which had gone through the time period for an appeal process, Ms. Lytle said L~at vas correct. .JJ!UDKEN'l': Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the Council and the Planning Commission be notified that an application was pending with the Zoning Administrator~ Vice Mayor McCown ~larified application and a scheduled date council's packet. a notification of a complsted for hearing would be placed in the Council Member Andersen said it would provide an opportunity for the pUblic to respond to the app~ication. City Manager Bill Zaner said staff had always been very careful in the land use regulations to never put an administrative officer in a position where he or she could he influenc~d by some individual action of an elected or appointed Official. He was concerned about the notice being ahead of the decision-making process, and the next logical step ~ould be to take it out of the Z~ning Administrator's hands and make it a public process that 'Would go through the Planning commission and the Council, which was not recommended by staf~. Vice Mayor McCown queried. whether the Zoning Administrator's hearing was published in the n~wspaper. Ms~ Lytle said yes. Vice M&yor McCown clarified an application for the process and the GF Zone would be publishe~ in the newspaper as ~ell as notice to surrounding property owners. Ms. Lytle said there was a 300-foot notice and a ~ewspape= notice. Council Me~r Kniss said that ~as an adequate process anQ would prefer not to have the additional notification. AKEXO~ FAILED 4-5, Andersen, Cobb l Fazzino, Wheeler ·yes.- XorlON PASSED 9-0. •• Utt,'" '." . PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM 3 , . PLANNING COMMISSION MTh'UTES ~..f7, (f'l0? QIDlliTOW~ GROUNp FLOOR (Gf) 1O.NUU TRiO; Th, City of Palo Alta is consjderi~9 a zoning ordinance text amendment to the GF zone district overlay to al'o~ certain uses to OCCUPi ground flear spaces, pursuant to th2 approval of a c00ditiona1 use permit. These uses include husiness or tr~de scnools, commercial recr~ation, day care, fina~cial services (except drive-in services), general business service, i':'ld medica1, professional and general business offices as conditional uses. The conditional use permit will be approved only for situations ~here, due to the location, access, or design of the ground floor spacp., there .re exceptional or extraordinary ci,cumstances ~r conditions app1icable to the property inyolved that do ~ot apply generally to property in t-,"'e same di strict. Envi ronmental Asses~ment; No significant impacts were determined to result from this project, and a negative declaration has been prepared. file Nos. 92-ZC-4, 92·EIA-J2. Zone District: GF. Chairman B~: Ar! ther~ any staff co~ents? Ms. tytle: No c~mments. Cnairman Egecham: Any questions from commissicn~r5? {None) Seeing none, we will open the floor te the public. Seeing none, we will r£turn this item to the commission, and begin commfssion oisc~ssion+ CorrrniSsioner Chri.stensen: I 'Wondered if it .... auld be possible for staff to generically go through one of the samp1e buildings you have given ws, and talk about how it might work. Ms. lytle: Do you mEan ~ow the process would work! ,Yes) The process would work ~ery much like a conditional use permit, but the applicant would nave the b~rden of substantiating an addit;on~l finodirJg. That flnding is m~ch less permissive than our typical use permit findings. It means that the appl i cant needs to show eviden-:.e that there; s something excepti.ll'tal OJ extraordinary about the proper-tYl eitner in terms of its location or improvement design, that would make it difficult for the normaliy permitted uses to work there. Tney _auld ne~d to shaw that the conditional ~ses are necessary because for some reason, tne perm1tted uses are not going to function well in that location. ] 'tWould see it as being much like the 251 Unlv!rsity A~enue project where you see a building that ;s designed, perhaps ele .... ated from tn.e street, and it does not ha.e windows that sene pedestrian focus or that bring people i:'1to the structure so that it does not fUnction well for retail use. The building on Hamilt~n is Gn example of o~e whic~, at first glance, you would look at now it is set back from the street in lts setup, and see that it has iii: ~ery narro'" street presentation and a long and narrow interior. It was orjgina11y designed for a gallery, I believe, in support of an office bUilding, and it has been vacant for a long time. Retail has not been attracted to that space. It is clear w~y that is so. They would need to demonstrate, perhaps because they are on tne edge of the ground floor district, you do not see supporting uses across t~e 5/27/91 -4· 5' CI 0/ "c ". c .' street from them. There; s a copy shup and a hote"l. Tho5e USE'S are not very conducive to drawing your attention to that p~rticular spot, so theoretica1ly, in combination, they might make a case that because of the design of the building and their location on the edge of the grou~d floer dlstrict, they have so~e exceptional and extraordinary circumstanC€3 to allow for iii use expanded from the regular ~F list of uses. Commissioner Carra~: Would you go that far in making a finding. as far as that being an exception, because right next to it is a tapEstry 9aller~ wr.ich seems to be dOing fine. Cr.airman Be-echam: Ms. Lytle is illustrating certain ideas. She would not say that that example would be granted an exception. That is not a location that is particularly bad. Because it is a long, narrow bui1ding ~itho~t much frontage, that is more of the indication of its belng inappropriate for retail. Ms. Lytle; [t co~ld be a combination cf factors. The design of the floer space in the building, tn~ fact tnat the building ;s not that old, so it is not l;~ely to be redone, a comb:nation of factors is what we ~uld look at. in this case, having to do ~ith design and locatl0n. Commissioner Marsh: I have a c~uple of questi~ns. A few things have been troubllng me. let me first say that basically, I think staff has done a good jab of trying to address the problems that we came up with when we looked at 251 UniverSity Avenue, where we said, it is not the end result that we mind here so much. We thin~ this building would be appropriate as a bank (Dr whatever it ended up being), but we don't like this PC process. We felt it was an awkwdrd situation that we were placed in. This does give us a process that we could use in the future that would be more comfort~ble. However, t~erE are t~o things about this, specifically. ~nd I have one more general conment that I WOuld like to get out here to see if other cOlTlT1issioners share ~y concerns. The first is the inc1usion of location in the findings. I have visited all of these sites, and one of them is an older home on Kipling that Mas been used fer retail (and I am not sure why ~e originally included that). but it was a s~~;ng store on that block at one time, so there ~as a history of retail use. Very clearl~ to me~ that hOl;se would meet a standard of having deSign problems that would inhibit any kind of retail in t~at location. How~vEr, I frankl~ don't think there is any location, per se, on this map that could not be successful in a retail use. We have a very successful retail core. r don't think any location on University Avenue is in Question. Frankly, I don't think there is any p1ace on the side stre~ts where retail cannot work, including that space on Hamilton Avenue. When you walk that area, you realize that the reason retail seems odd there is due to the b1ack hole that that building presents. There is successful retail virtually on every side of that building. It is just that one big road block to having retail be successful in that area. I don't think there is anything il1here~t about that area of Hamilton. So it seems to me that if "e really have places whe-re location does not suit retail, maybe we need to look at redrawing the ~onjng lines, rather than statinfj that location is grounds for an exclusion. The second problem I am having with this is the inclusion of general 5/27/91 -5- ~-.. "$, . --~~ • b~sinfSS office in the exceptional categories. The possible uses would be bUsin!ss or trade ~choo1s. commercia1 r~creat;or.. day care, financial services, general business servicE, and medical. pl"ofes$ional and general busin2ss offi~es. It seems to me that scme of those are extreree-ly appropriate for a downtown are-a, such as bUSiness or trade sc~oQls, comnercial recreation, Reach-kind of flcilities. day care, although tnere is no way we would have a day care factlity in the downtown cere of Palo Alto. financial services are certainly appropriate on the s~de streets, if not allowed ;1n the mail' part of Uni .... ersity Avenue. However j 1 have a problem when it gets to the ger,e-ral busir1ess serllices. The first set of services really defines a customer base or a commercial orientation that ;s apprcpriate to h~ve downtown, wh~re you are going to ~ave walk-by traffic, and tnere is gCing to be a clear sign that people are welcome to come and go and tnat something is nappening in those locati\Jrts. Put 1:'1 a general bUsiness service, like a title company. iii public utilities office (some of the examples that are under the definition ~f ~general business·), and what you will get is iii building that has mini-blinds ~n all of the windows and no obvious act i \lity Cl" sign af act hity or welcome to the ped~strian area. Then you get a negative atmosphere. What we need to strive for, at the very least, is a use that is not going to impede a pedestrian walking by. It does not nave to be a retail use they would walk into. let's take that parcel on Hamilton Avenu~ we hav~ be2n discussing, which we know is a possible candidate. If you fill that up with business offices and you close up all the wi ndo"',) , you will simply ~ir.tain the black hole you ~aye there ~ow. That is what will happen if you include general office uses. At the same time~ it would certainly be an additional step. Tn! DEC buildjng on Bry~:'1t Street is an example where general busin~ss office was perhaps the appropriate use, alth~u~h that building went through a diff!rent process. Those are specific comments 1 have, and 1 would like to know if anyone else has any specifiC concerns about them. The finaT statement J wish to make is that I think if we pass this, we are going to hav~ to be prepared to say no to people who come forward. 1 think it is very llkely that we would b€ opening the door to people that we are not ready to deal witn. For example, gettlng baCK to Hamilton Avenue, I ~m not sure that that is {lne r wouid be ir,cl ined to vote for having an excluslon under this. They would haiJe to make a very much be-tter ca:s.e than I can see on a sl.Ipel"f1cial 1;asis. So 1 t(1ink 'JIIe really need to tninK about whether t~e odvantages outweigh tne possible prob1ems we are going to have down tne road in creating some expectations. Chairman Beecham: Does staff nave any comments regard1ng the ramifications if we were to deltte General Bus'iness Offic.e ar.c3 delete: location from your proposal? ~l..Y.'tl.!!:; You could do both of those i terns. The only corrrnent I wou1J make is to clarify that Commissioner Marsh, a couple ~f times in her comments, said "general business sendees" ~nd 1 think she was referring to ~genera1 bus~ness office. ~ COTml'issioner. G1uier; I ha"e a question for staff. An: we, as planning commissioners, going to see everyone of these use permit applications come before us"? ~s. lyt1 e: 'feu wi 11 see appeal:; of the use permi t preces s.. ~'au de f'!ot r . tim in :.. t-~- .,-.. , \ --- see an application that ;s uncontested. C9mmi5si~ner Glazfer: J think Pam must have read my notes before shp came here tonight, because ~ot only do I agree witM what she said, but might stake out a position that is e¥en a littl~ bit further out tha~ hers. J am ~ery ambivalent abcut this. There is no question that for a lot of property owners in that district. retail is kind of i pain in the neck arJd they would prehr not to have mud! to do with it. We made a policy detision si.x years ago, which I wu not a part of, but r certainly support ,t now. r think Pam is right. If we think that it is ~o longer an important policy or if we think there is something wrong with the GF district as it is currently laid out, we ought to lOOK at the whole district instead of creatin~ some process that will create a lot of pain. If you look at the ipp11cations I think we ~ill get from this, there are four c.ses that staff has already identified. We all got a letter in the mail yesterday, or at least] did. There are three additlonal cases that 1 am aware of person~11y that do not show up on any of these lists. Once t~ese eight cases start coming up, r am sure there ~ill be a iittie bit of a spillover effect, like ~Boy. the guy ne~t door got out of GF, so can't! get OlJ!. of GF now too?" I think. that is going to be very time-consuming for staff. We have beer. talklng for the past weeks ,bout how much work is guing to be put into the Compt'ehensive Plan, and how littie staff time there is going to be left to do anything else but that. r have a feeling that you are going to be looking at ]0 to ~O conditional use permits in the first year of this. Fra~kly, I am very concerned t~at. for examp1~, if we are not going to b~ looking at eacn of tne~e use permits, the old ]f Wishes Were Horses bookstore could all of a sudden disappear from the retail list, When J figured out that t~at was the address they were talking about there, I got rather angry, because that is 11 great SP{lt f'Jr retail. In fact, it was originally designed for retail years ago. I looked it up ir'J my little historical note.book at home. [ certainly agree that general office is inappropriate. ] am not e~en sure that we w~nt to send a m~ssage to the community that all {If a sudden, we are going to 100k more favorably than we hill .... e ; n the p.e:st upon applications to withdraw from th~ ~f zone. There is a process in place now, where if people are really serious about this, they can apply for a variance. If people were really serious about having t~is. they w~uld have ShOWl1 up tonight and tal k to us about i.t~ They are not h.ere. In balance, I would just as soon have this thing disappear. I don't really see what it does for us, except in very, very odd s,tuatlons which we can look at and deal with, one per year or every other year. Chairman Beecham: Would staff explain what options we have t~ deal with for the few that come up? Cnmmissioner Glazier is talking about one or two com;~g up per year, that we have ways of dea1ing with them. Would you explain What thosp. are: M?._:_~; (s!;ential1y, you currently have two options. There is no variance process for use, so that is not an option, There is the option of the zone change. ObviouslYl when you come out and remove one piece of property from the center of a district, it is a .... ery difficuH thing to do. We g~nera11y look for boundaries and edges and ways of incorporating a logical breaking point for a district boundary. rather than haVing an lsolated property in the center of a district. So it is not easy to 5/27/92 -7- --~ • remo~e 5arr~thing indi~idua17y from the lonf district. The otner option is what you ha'ie seen, the 251 Un1versity ,e.,\lenu(.' process, w~ich li a Planned CQmmu~jty zone precess. That invol ... es the finding of public be~efTt. Obviously. ~e do not have anything that gives flexibil,ty th~t does not include that. That one we do ~se for indi\lid~al parce1s, and 1t fits better, b~t it has this other requirement. Commissjoner Glazier: If we were to approve something like this, cDuld we make the conditional use perm1t include planning comrnissl0n review as a required part of it? Ms. lytle: '(ou could set up II new proces.'S. essentia11y. We would not feCOIMlend that you make t;,15 use permit different from oUef use peMllits. I think the (l.'rrent process works well, and the diviSion of responsibility in the CO!mlUnity I'las served lolL I do not see placing som~ new sort of hal f-one hal (-the-other process in here. In fact, it would have t~ be a counctl deCision, h~cause the planning commission does not hive decision-making authority il'l our charter. Ms. rase: It could be rewritt€n so that. everything went to the planning commission and city council. I am not sure how much support you would get for that from the council, but yes, you can do that. As Nancy said, under the charter. you cannot make final decisions. thalrma~ Beecham: If W~ are nervous about what may tome up here, maybe another option) as in a few otner cases, where we have reQuest~d reports back to the commission on a periodic basic. I am not one for having reports ad infinitum, bk't 1 could see having a report for the first on! or two years. Then we tan aS~ESS whether it is wor(ing or not. CQmmisstoner Glazier: But by then~ it is too Tate. All of i sudden. we could have six GF-e.xempted properHes, incl udi n9 one or two wt'li en we really appreclated, so I appreciate what we are trying to do, but! am not sure that is the right way to go about it. Conrriss.icner Carrj!_sco: I think the idea of fle;(i~ilit.Y which has beEn incQrporated into this orcinance. as compared to the way we u~ed to deal witn it, ;s far better~ This process, as defined by staff~ is easier and less ~nerous on a busin~ss person than the PC Zone, and I thi~k it will be better for the retail zone anyway. Like Commissioner Harsh, I i~ also a little concerned that business offices, or at least financial ser~ic~s, medical, professional and gener!l business offices, would be included in t~is exception procedure. I think, though, that ~nlike C~issioner Marsh, it would be a goo~ idea to incl~de location, because pv~n though conc~ptually I agree that if we are to eliminate location, we shou!d change the loning map, howel,ler, there may be a combination of building design and location that come into play. for instance. if "If Wishes Were Horses~ were located on Hamilton Al,lenue, that kind of seth~ck would definitely not work ~s retail. especially as Hamilton Avenue approaches Alma Str~et. However, on Ramona, with the k.inds of proje(ts tr"lit ha ... e nappened along Ramona, it more likely would work as retail. So I think location does playa part. Thirdly~ J think we are in a reCEssion and we are h~ ... ing a larger t~i~ '. 5/27/92 -8- \ • .-~ ,. , \ nonaal number of vicineils, J don't think we s~ould over react, becau~e [ am not 5~re the rEcession is going to last as long a5 our zoni~g map hsts. SQ we sht:luld be more stable and more long term. If.,.,s are comm1ttfd to I GF zon~ that looks the way it does on our zoning map. we s~ould stick with tnat outl ine antj not change it too nluch. So I :lrI1 ~!"l f;vo,. of the uce-ptlon procedure. I have not figured out a "ay between r.ot wanting to changE t~e zoning ~ap and findi~g a way to not allow an exception for locatfon. 1 do n<lt know fl:ow you dea1 with that, but 1 think. I see scme value in what staff has determined. Including ioeation is one of those is~ue~ that contrj~ute5 to the exception procedure. CommissiDner Christensen: r am witr. Commissionpr Glazier on this, partly because we spent a lot of ti~e i~ comir.g up with the ground fJ~or retail, oyer a lot of objections that it was put in place. There were a lot of predictjo~s about how terrible !t would be for Ue downtowi"l and the economic i~pact that it would nave. Actually. it has not had any of tnose impacts. In fact. it 11411$ been I POSiti¥f Uling. In the case cf the buiidings that we hav€ been given Ii examples, J agree with Commissioner Marsh~ Perhaps witn the e.ception of the one on Kipling, which would be nice to saye as an aid hoose, I am not too s~r~ J would agree tnat they are exceptional circumstances. The fact that t~e one is practica1lya brand new bu.iiding an4 trrat somebody went out and designed it the wlY it is, and then turns around and says, ge~. we really don't like what we did, and we goofed up, so you can help us out here. r don't have a lot of sympathy for that. I do not see Oin exci:ptior.al circumstance in that case, at least, what would rise t~ my mind as an exceptional circumstance. So I a~ torn. r agree that it would ~ nice to have some flexibiiity, but r am just concerned, given the examples we tJave be.:!n given, about how it wou'd operate ilnd whether it mignt really work tD undermine what we hay! worked hard to set up downtown. Cormissioner Schmidt: I generally agree wlth (mTlTlissioner Marsh's conment!; at the outseL I think that location would net be ii!: reason to grant a change in the GF retail use. I thin!!: the l~ning map defines what should be retail and it is more the building design tnat would be a crit€rion for making the change. r a~ree basica11y with what everyone else has said that time was sp-ent in defining this and in putting tne whole idea togetner. It has: for the most part, worked quite well, and it is the rec€ssion right now that is dri¥ing vacancy rates up everywhere. So J question, too, whether we n~ed to do this. ! have one comment to make. If we do approve s~me ~ariation of this, I would 1 ike to see something changed. There is a statep.'el'lt mentionEd in the first paragraph which is mentioned repeatedly throughout the rep~rt; ~The locatlon, access or desig~ Df the ground floor space of the building proposed to house the use creates and exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions ... • To me? that statement needs a little more clarification of the fact that it is an existing butlding or eXlsting ground floor space. When I first read it, I read 11 as the building proposed, like it could be a new building, so you could design a new building that wou1d not work for ground f100r retail. Cha rman_ Bee-;_ham: I feel that we do have a situation where we ",a¥e no opt on for those few cases where there is a problem. The best examplE'. aga n, is 251 University Avenue. That was designed as a bank, and there was a bank there for quite a time. It had retai1 in there for a short 5/27/91 ·9, I fl ~ r 'I I., ~ I 'I ;.1 , 1 ~ , i .. , . .....;--~--.. -.-- while, but the bl.ll1ding is not designed for retail. The retail that was ttlf~re was \{~ry specialized --\lery pric)' items, and they did not e ... en pretend to cater to walk-by trade. They were open by appointm€r.t only, in general. That 1S a bUllding that does not work as retail. and we ~ad no cptiQ~ except as i PC to give them relief. ! tnink that w~at ;s being proposed here does not open the flood 3ates. J certainly agree _ltn the comments rEgarding location and also to delete the general businesi office as i: penn;tt~ use. But tMis is a usef'Jl flexibility to have in the downtown ground floor area, and I would support jt, Commissioner M.3.rsh: I have a questior. for staff. Would you remir,d me ef the process necessary for a property owner to initiate a zone cnange? Ms. Lytle: A zone change is eS:5entially a pr-ocess that involves planning cOlTlTlission recol11llEndatfon to H.e city council for approval. It is a map amendment, and they pres~nt to you a copy of the boundary of the irea for which they are requesting the changp.. We do an envjro~~lental assessment like we would for ~ny other project as defined under CEQA. We notic~ it in the papers, a 300-foot notice, and then it is scheduled befDre the planning cDmmission for recommendation and to the city council for final action. Commissioner Marsh: And does the zone thar.ge live with the land rather than with tne tuildiog? Ms. lytle: Ttiat 1S correct. A zone change is appiied t.o the property. It generally is also accMpanled by a: Comprehensive Plan amerjdmr:-r.t, because the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations arE fairly consistent. For ground floor. I do not think there ~s a problem there. The land use designation is broad. There is Downtown Conmerc"ial or Community Commercial. So that ~au'd not be an issue, but in other areas wh!re you apply for a zone change, oftentimes that appl~catior. 1S accompanied by I ComprehEnsive Pian amendmp.nt. Commjssioner Carr~; Are you saying that if you make an exce~tion to the design of a bUilding, does that run with the property! Commissioner MarsM: No, this is proposing to run with the building. Ms. lytle: This wou1d run with the bui1ding~ but a zone change would be Oil the property, assumedly, although tho!! Planned Community change does reference development plans, ~o you nave more control with that. But ~ standard zone cnange has nothing to do witn the improvements on the land. C~mmfssioner Schmidt: Ms. Lyt1e, did you say that a variance is not a possibility ~ith something like that? ~~11l~: That is correct. Just to clarify this for e~eryone, the ~ariance is what you use to get relief from the Site development regulations. The precess for getting a use in addition to a permitted use is caned the conditlonal use permit process. So you cannot get ii variance for uses~ only for those aspects of the development Df the property. sucti aa tne height of the buildings, the setbaCKS. the way the structure is developed. Conmi:;Sloner Schmidt: Can a conditional use be just per tenant? If an 5j17jg2 ·)0- ... - • \.<­>.:.. -: , ,; ~fr wants to rent a building for a day caT~ center ~r for commercial re<:reation~ can it be just for that specific tenant? Would they have to c~~e forward again when there is a new tenant? Ms. lytle: No, you car.not make it spe'ific to an individual tenant. Wh~n you grant a conditio~al use permtt for ~ church, you can limit the characteristics of Hat use of the prope-rty. but if th€ Methodist chllrch leaves and the t1Qrrr.on chllrc~1 enters. and the Morman church can 1; 'lie within the ccnfines oT the use re5tri~t;ons that the Methodist church had formerly had placed on them, that use permit runs ~;th thp. land. They have the ability to change tenants, Commiss;oner Glazier: But they can apply for a zone ch2nge. as opposed to a variance, to get exempted from ground fl~or. Ms. lytle: That is correct. The zone change is an option to them, e ; the!'" as a 5 tanda rd zone cn InQe or Plam':ed C{llTl'llun it,)· zone en ange . Chajrman 8e~im: I th~nk that in genera1, we would be hard pressed to allow what could be called ·spot zoning· however. Th~t would be very difficult. Commissioner Glazier: r do not disagree with that, Chainman Beecham. The problem r a~ having with this is that if we are not gGing to hav€ any review over this t ] feel we are abdicating our responsibiljty over a pretty important policy decisiGn which ls, what kind \If retail vital'lty a.re we 90in9 to ha~e downtown. ] cou1d agre~ wholeheartedly with this process if there were a way that the planning c~ission individually could look. at eac:::h t)f tt.ese~ but without that, I feel pretty strongly that r could not agree to it. Without a Tot of discu~.sion. 1 th'ink. that if this process had been i" place today, three of the four sites tr.at were mentioned in this report would have had their conditiona1 use permits granted, and r don't think there would have been a lot of sentiment on the planning commission to approve three of those four sites. Ms. lytle: let me just correct that, H I may. You will recall that we gave you examples of people who have come forward with situations, and I wou1d not prejudge the outcome of a use permit hearing. They are quasl-judicial hearings, and we need to take in test~mony and evidence both suppurtive and agii~st those applications befo~e making a decision. So I would not prejudge, because we used them as examp1es.of folks who have talked to us about di1emmas. that they would be approved. Commissioner Marsh: 1 think it is understood that when we are talking, we are talking in a very general, supef'ficial way. W'e have a record of judging apPlications as they come in. I am starting to lean t\lward the nc-~rdinance side, although I think. that if we do that, we must be prepared, at 1east in one case, t~ perhaps invite a zone cn~nge. lr. the case of the Kfpling properties, if those properties continue to b~ of conc!rr. to the owner (and only one is mentioned but 1 think. there are two that are in a dlfficuTt situation), those are untenable in their currer.t development as r~tal1 ground floor appiications. 50 were we to move forward without en ordinance, tnat is one case, on a very superficial, general level that I lNouTd be predisposed to look at positively. 5/27/92 -11- .. /. ~ owner wants to rerlt a DUlhling for iI day care center Or for cOt1lTlercial recreati~n, can 1t be ju~t for that specific tenant? ~ould they have to come forward again when there is a new te~ant? ~~; No, you c~nnot make it specific to a~ indtvicual tena~t. When you grant a conditional use permit for a chu(ch, you can 1imit the character' sties of that use of the property, but if the Methodist church leaves and the Mormon church enters and the Mormnn church can live within the confines of the use restrictions that the Methodist church had formerly had placed on them t t~at use permit runs with the land. They have th! ability to change tenants. Commissioner Glalitr: But they can apply for a zone change, .s opposed to a ~ariance, to get exempted from ground floor. ~~tle: i"8t is corre~t. The zone change is an option to them, either is a standard zone change or Planned Community zone change. Cha1nnan Be,e..c.h.~: I think that in general, we would be hard pnssed to allow what could be called ·spot zonin9~ however. Tnat wouid be very difficult. Commlssioner Glazier: I do net disagree with that, Chairman Beecham. The prob1em I am having wlth this is th~t if we are not going to have any re'liew ov!r t~isl I feel we are abdicating our r.o:'sponsibility over il ptetty i~ortant po11cy decision which is, what kind of retail vitality are we going to ~ave d~wnt~. 1 could agree wholeheartedly with this process if there were il way that the planning commlssion individually cDuld look at each of these, but without that, I feel pretty strongly that r could not agree to it. Without a lot of discussion, 1 think that if this process had been in place tcday~ three of the four s'ttes that were ~nt;oned in tnfs report wDuld have nad their conditional use permits granted t and I don't think there would have been a let of sentiment on the planring commiSSion to approve three of those four sites. Ms. LytlE: Let me just correct that, if I may. You will recall that we gave you examples of peopI! who have come forward with situ~tions, and I would ~ot prejud~e the outcome o~ a use permit hearing. T~ey are quasi-judicial h2arings, and we need to take in testimony and evidence both suppurtive and 'against tn~se applications befor~ making a decis;on_ So I wo~ld not prejudge, because we used them as examples of folks who ha~e ta1ked to us about dilemmas, that they ~ould be apprcv~d. CQrmlissjoner Marsh: I think. it is understood that when we are talking, we ar~ talking in a ~ery general, superficial way. We have a record of judging appiications as they come in. 1 am starting to lean toward the no-ordinance side, a1though I think that if we do that, we must be prepared, it least in one case, tl1 pertlaps invite a ZO."1e change. In th~ case of the Kipling properties, if t~ose properties continue to be of concern to the owner (and only ene is mentioned but I think there are blo that ire in a difficult situation), t~ose are ilntenabie in their current development as retail ground floor applications. So were we to move forward without an ordinancE, that is one easel on a very superficia1, general level that I would be predlsposed to look at positively. 5/27/92 -11- -----,..,,-:,. ... lIi!Iilillne.IIlI'ill""'.(.nli·""'~ , .. ~.-.--"'-"- C.i ssioner Gl al ier: No one has come up wi tn ar. id~a. as; to hoMo' we can do that. [could support the moti~n if there is a process to get it to come bef()re us. CO!M1is.sioner Ca_rrasco: J think there is an appaal process, and Uese exceptions should go tbrougn relativel) Quic~l). If sometning goes Wi'"ong, there is IIIlways the abil it) for t.he several groups downtowl'1 or neighbors to app!al it. Commissioner G'~zier: What I am a little more concerned about is t~ings getting through that ~e would not like. The appeal process would not exist in that case. J would like to be proactiye about it, rather than reacti.e after a sedes of decisio~s have beer. made tI1at w~ do Mt agree with. Ccrrmjssioner Sc~midt: Could it be put in that tne plan:1in9 (;olTlll~ssfon be notified specifically when something comes to the zO-''Iing administl"ator so that ~ would know about it? Maybe get a repnrt from you, or get a little summary of the specific property before it carnes to you? ~~; That would be cur preferenre, rather than changing the rev~e~ autn~~ity for the various types of planning entitlements that we have. It is pretty 'Well set and has wor''Ke-d wel1. I would prefer that we have 1 'ike a one-year reportfng period, where we wi 11 3~nd you not; fication of those applications as they come in. You would have the opportunity to see the p~oject descriptio~ as it gets agendized. You could attend the hearing if you wanted to, and ~ppeal it if you feel the need. Cooom'ssiol"le'l" Christenser.: If 'yOiJ a.ppeal it, ]'ou cannot sit as a planning commissioner when it comes before you. You are not allowed to be ar. .pp~l1.te_ Cha'rman Bee~ham: Vou could ask your neighbor to appea1 it. Ms_ lytl!: That is true, if you f!lt you were not in favor of it. Commlssioner Marsh: Unfortunate1y. although it is an innovative idea. I a.m not really cra.zy about that concept, because that puts this really on the shoulders of th€ zoning commissioner, looking over and giving advice, in certain cases; that is not the saine as gi't'ing advice in a public setting. That is certair11y i!: very haphazard kind of process, as compared to what lie have wnen we aroe in the public process here at the planning cDfmlission. Commissioner Glazier: process where we were r.ot. I agree _ith that idea. If there were i formal ir.vQ1ved, r would support H, otherwise, J would Commissioner Marsh; ff this concept do~s root meet the approval of the planning---coIm11ss'ion, what happens then? Is that it? Ms. lytle: NOt we will forward your recommendation to the city cowncil. Commissioner~~rsh; So there will be a scheduled council discussion? Ms. lytle: ~es. 5/21/92 -)3- -""0::---------------- • • ~issioner Marsh: r d~ feel tnat the council needs to take ~ crack at t~is, in their efforts to encourage busine~s and make Palo Alto !J.usiness-friendly. Whatever the recommendation of the comissio'1 ~s, if they thinK this i~ important to dc, I think the (ouncil needs to have the opportunity to do that. MOTION F~: Chairman Beecham: rs there any further discussion on thls motion? All tho$e in fi~~r of the motion tOo accept the staff recommendations, w;tn three changes: (lJ t~ delete General Business Offices as a potentially permitted usej {2) to delete location as a criterion; and (3) to transpose ·opposed-so that it ~overs the existing buildings verSIJS tOo-be-built buildings, say Aye? Ail opposed? That fails on a vote of 2-4, wit~ Commissiuner Carrasco and myself voting aye, and Commissioners C~ristensen, Gla~ier, Marsh and Schmidt vot;~9 no. When does this go to the (ity councf1? Ms. Lytle: On June 15th. COmmissiDner Marsh: I wish to add another c~mment. I do think this is a val ;.ant effort by the staff, arld ~ur concerns here have nothing to do with th! staff effort. If we were going tD do something with this, you have presented as good a possibility as I can ;magin~ for dealing with it. It is just the longer-term concerns that we have. s' ", ,June II, 19n HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California pround Floor Zone District Text Amendments Members of the Council: Report in Brief , -, ," Staff is proposing Zoning Ordinance text amendments to t~e Ground Floor (GF) lone district I}verl ay to ill Jow certain add; tiona1 uses. not currently ~ll'owed. to occupy ground floor spaces. These additional u~es would be subject tl> the approval of i c-on::Htional use permit, a.nd include business cr trade schools~ commercial recreation, day care, financial services (except dri~e-in services', and general business services. In order to enSure the use permit applles to limited, unusual circ~mstanCe5t an additional finding 1 beyond current use permit findings, has been added. That finding states: -The locatian, access or design of the ground floor space of the existing building housing the propos~d use, creates excfpt1~nil or extraord1nary Circumstances or conditions applicable to the property fnvol ved that C:o rot apply ge-nerally to property in the same distrjct ,. A ITK)re detalled description of tne proposed text amendments is provided in the attacfled Phnn1ng Conrnission st~ff report. Ttle Planning Commission recommends tnat the text amendment not be approved. Planning Commission Actjpn On Hay 27, 1992, the Planning Comission reviewed tne proposed GF zone district text amendments. A motion to adopt the amendments with three modifications fa'le~ on a 2-4-1-0 vote (Christensen, GlaZier. Marsh, and Schmidt against, Cullen absentJ. The modifications 1ncluded the elimination of 'Jffices as a conditionally al10wtd use, elimination of location withir. the GF lone district as a criterion for the-finding of unusual circumstance, and i minor wording change ta the proposed additional use permit finding. Minutes of the Planning Commiss:on action are included in your (ouncil packet. The Planning Coft'lllission was generally in agreement that general business office uses snould not be considered in the 1 i st of eICpanded uses for the GF zone. They conclud~d that office uses present facades that are not conducive to and tend to detract from the yjta1, pedestrfan-orientllZJ atmos.phere of the GF zone. They cited examples such as dark window glass and wind(lf{ shades as detractrng elements CMR:294:92 .. --:,: .- . - associated with office. development. They also E'xpre!iseoj c:Jncern over the 1 ack of ped;estdan traffic generated by offices I and felt that the exa.mples of p:--operties 1 isted by staff would ~ detrimental if cC'nverte-d to office use. for those raaso~s, staff is persuaded that office uses should not be included in the list ~f conditional uses. In this way. any conversion of ground floor space to office use would continue to require a mdP amendment or Planned Community Zone Charge and, finding of "public benefit." T~e motion also intluded the elfmination of "location" within the GF zone as a criterion to satisfy the finding of extra~rdiMa.ry c;~cumstar.ce ~n the use permit process. [t was the Commission's contention that there were no known locations ~1thin the GF zone not appropr;at~ for retail-oriented uses, and indiVidual zon~ m.ap amendments could rell!ve ullfor~seen properties of the GF requirements. Staff agrees that location hy itself should not be used to satisfy the requirement of spechl circums.tance for the granting of a use permit. HiJwever~ Toca.tion in (ombinatiar. with a building design not conducive to retail should be considered. Fer example, there is a s),--mbfotic relatiol'lsnip among retail-oriented uses. Ground floor spaces without prn.inent street frontage and located at the edge of the GF zone may have more difficulty supportinfj retail uses than a similar space on University Aven!Je. Uses fac:in!: Alma have a seve;e disad'lo'antage currently because Alma ;$ not ·friendly· to pedestrlans. Staff be1ie .... es that loca.tion ;n connection with buiidi~g design should be cited to satisfy the unusual circumstance finding of tne use permit. The Commission modified the additional use permit finding to clarify that u!e permits are granted on1y for existing buildings, not propcsed bulld'ings, St-off nas revised the fi~d1ng to reflect tnat recommendation. RecQrrmendation Staff recommends that the City COllncil adopt the Negative Declaration an<l apprO'ole the attached ordinance, wtlic.h has been amended to incorporate the Planning Co,..,.,; ssion del 1berations regarding elimination of offices and cl arifi cation that the use pennit applies only to existing buildings. Respectfully submitted, ~~/t>;J.4L.{-4.· NANCY'HADOOX LYTLE Zoning Administrator .~=--'~ ~u FLEMING ' Assistant City Manager ./,~I i. ; ..., I j{ ./ /, / /<--t / .. ~.,,~, . KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of PT~nr.ing and Community [nlll ronment Atta.chments: Planning Commission Staff R~port dated May 22, 1992 . Rev; sed Ordinance CMR:294:92 6/11/92 ~;\mY'\gfcmo' ,jc P age 2 . ~ . , ~ -. ,.. - :-,: .. :~; . " p.' cc: Planning C"",",isslon Stephanie £l.ins, 3350 ~. Bay,hore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Gary Zeimet, c/o Gr,bb .nd [llis, 379 Lytton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dan Scruggs, 1;54 The Ai.med., San Jose, CA 95126 Rick Barry, 431 F1o~enc~ Street, 5~!te 220, Palo Alto) CA 9430] Steve Jarvis, lU Hamiltof'l Avef'lue. PaiD Alto, CA 94301 Victor Belano1 102 ~niver$ity A¥enue, Palo Alto, fA 94301 CMR:294:92 -"Itt., illP H 't , 5/11/92 Pag, 3· , f , "ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COtlNC I L OF'--;;;TH=E'-;;C"'I"'TY CF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE IS (ZONING) RELATING TO GROUND FLOOR USES IN THE COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT The council of the city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 18.49.120 (Ground floor (GF, regula­ tions] of Chapter 18.49 [CD COl!UDercial Oo-,mtOItill District Regulations) of the Palo Alto ~~icipal Code is hereby deleted and a new Sectio~ 18.49.120 [Ground floor (~F) ~equlationsl is hareby added, to read as follows: 18 • ., .12 Q Ground SECTION 2. chapter 18.50 is hereby add.ed to Title 18 [Zoninq] o£ the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: agencies; 1 ~ , - (7) (8) Entranoe~ lobby, or -'-'reception areZls &erving nongrowld 1'100): uSes; All "ther l!Ses,p8nlitted in the Wlderl yi"'J clistriat,' provided" sUch uses are not on the gl:Olilld floor.' . (lif . Notvitlmt""ciiriqsuhsecti"ll ia), not acre than tventy­ ~ive,::per~t.f25tloft-.he grot=:! Uoor .... rea not :t:ronting on .. ~i'lD"lr'be··ioecuP~.d .by ... a USe 1l.enUtted in the appli<2ble ~"f!y~.SP ... ~ .. !,tr1 ct.' l,a';'~O;*)iI.·'.e0zi4itl0IiIl1 ......... >:· (a)~.'l'h.t"ll""inq uses·,...y Iiic·~t1<m;.llY,4l':io....,.on.t1,,(growid floor i:>··the GP~ouncl floor i:J!;iObS' .4J;Str.l.QI:', :'4}ecttO·1nuanCeo.taeondltiona,lUBe it ~.;r~":" #;"flthOllsP~.1i1.9i> and .... ithth....dditaonal t'~ ~~!1¥~~~n,(b)~ () ··.w .••. lnec.··.···.,i; ortRd ... sc.hOoli l~ir: ., '~lai recreation:' .' (3) .n.q. ,care: };~. ~1 ... 1s<!ryl<:""; U<:ept driv.e in).erv1"" .. i '{!ifF ~eu:..~CO:#:!ny.,peri>ltu'din. thii ;oppl1~l.· underlyinq'COdistrlct.: provid~ ~.¢f1I.~are21~ on.tiH. qroundtt<>9r , .(~r:E:',:;'i'liif·'zi1111riq'll1IiI1iilstratQr 'lIiY9:iinta .• ooi\ll1tiorieJ. USe ~lO~:t,,+;i~ctiClllOhlY .'ii·,l1e. Dr,sheaiUces the. 1'01 low . ~8~~j:·~t:~\!i#·~~~'t~~.'t~lnqs 'r..<lU1"~ by·~ect.i.~ .. 18,~9.0 ;?~ ~"·lCClit;IQn'c.~'~d<iIU . ,or the··~ "tfbOrlJ "'060£ tb'iiiC~i1;i~~''b''h~~~9 . the'· proPosed·\lSIi···· ~!:'i.s i>X6ep* .. ~i.cPr •. ¥o,!,srnuy c~taneU or~~mciitions iippl i'?"b1" 1;9' th6. property1nVQ 1. v.ed.thal:' <10 ""t.. a!'Ply ~antt'n)r<>perty,.1n .the ........ d.ist;ict.· . , . .Kj:il.'iri:i' ,\I""." eo;,ait;iolUilly ". 'peri! ttiii1··' P4rl1.Winl:.to.th.lii ~.m';'i>boa.l",he,.~recHv""nly . ~lr\gthe. e".i. .. t~ .,at'· the ~.dI~':i'hat·· ~ated1:h~ 'ex""ptional . (;l:r6iaI~ . upc.li·,,;hicli thi. ~i#1iJl9setfcirth ·ilI'"'1h""etJ:or. (1:» was made. ... .. ' .. 1a~50.0.01! ... ·aoltpti"". 'a) Appn.cation uyboi' """de to ~ti~:'d~~or .,9f p1aru'llng :~d ~mmunity, t:!ny~rC)llment for an, exception, t.oi:tJte,ot:hend~Penilttedor.eonditiona11r pen.J.tted qround floor ~el\~·1;o"'~lo""a'u"" ~nlit~e<l).n.t,he.pplieab~e underlying co iti .. trictr.iith<o.follOWUlg· c:OMiticru. ... r"met. '" .. I: .. " :'" ,., _,' ,':,,,,,,, ."",H' " " .'" '" 2 I 51 ' ) t .. ~ ...--"" --."',.-.... ,,,.-.. _-' • . .';.: ~'-" ;, 'lM iJU Hal app1.1r;ationtor the ,exCeption La , .. de.m.m. tIleVlle..ncyra~,~r."ground.floor p~1 ..... vi.thu.;t;.""Gl".~~.U .. triot, ... l1.tandl)~~~t.r~":i;'·~lJ!.l.".~t. (st) or . g: .... ter';, .. r'.!'ll<!, ,c1~,i;&hat;t"j!,cti<luct til" ~,,~,'C"~ in .. ~~ .... !!f~Y!!,e.,r,) I ... ".nd :!~~f{: •. ·'.Th.:'~~t;c:an~~~t:8'~t:."ttWi'~ .. r..flo.r. ~J:~. \thl.cli'tM;~Pi>llciltl""'.iSibeb!g' ... 01 •• ' "!Wi"!'. been ·;. ....... nl:'; .··.and i !;jieva,U:&i>la:: ,. ~<>r '. i." ...... ',. i ii, i.' i .... lX. ;ilOnt:i>S'io,,;cj~"~tb. i tIJiio''ClZ't:he ""QI""':'~.. .... .... .... ii'..... • .ii e,WU!",\1 . .l.~n, SECTION 3. section 18 ~90. 060 [Conditional use permit-­ Findings and conditions) of the Palo Alto Mur.icipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.90.0&0 ConcU.tiona1 us. pe.rait--pltuUnqa &11.4 conditions .. (4) The zoning a02ini&trator may grant 4 conditional use permit in aocord with thi'J. title if i trom the application or the facts presented at the public he.arinq, he ~r"_'~ finds: (1) The proposed use, at the proposed location r will not be detrimental or injurious to property or-improvem.ents in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general wel~are, or convenience. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of this titl~~ (b) The zoning administrator may impose such re&sonable conditions or restrictions as he or"sb' deems necessary to secure the purpose of this title ana to assure operation of the use in a 3 . ;'(,-,::- . ,"-;)';--~ ... -...... manner compatible ,\o°ith existing and potential uses on adjoij,ing properties and in the qeneral vicinity. SEctION f. The Council finds that this project will have no significant environmsntal affect. SECTION commencement of lldoption$ IIITRODUCED PASSE!): AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ARSTENTIONS: ATTEST: city Clerk 5. APPROVED AS TO FORM: This. ordinance sha.ll be effective thirty-.first day after the date APPlIOVED: Hayor City Manaq.er on of Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 4 the its .. Hay 22, 1992 PlANNING COMMISSION Palo Alto, C.liferni. Ctty of J'alo tlito ~O_8C~ 10250 f":,,(J fLlel, Col '94!DJ GE lONE DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENTS Members Df the Cov.mission: REPORT IN BRIEf \ Ii_ St,ff is proposing Zoning Ordin,nce text amendments to the Ground Floor (GEJ zone district overlay to .no. certain additiDna' uses, not cUI'rent1y a11owed, to occupy ground floor spaces. Thes! additional uses would be subject to the approYI1 of • conditional use pere1t. Such addItional uses inc1yde bUSiness or trlde schools, commercial recreition, day care, financial services (except drive·in s~rv1tes), general business service, and medical, professional and generil busintss offices. In ord~r t~ ensure this broader range of uses is limited to ~xtraardinary cirCUMstances, tnt condltipnal use pe~~t ~oyld 1~clude~ in addition to tne current find1ngs, I find109 w~ich stItes: -The location. access. ~r des'g" of the ground floor spice of the building proposed to house the usa, creates e~ceptiona1 or extraordinary c1rcu.stances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not .pply gener.lly to property in tho same district." Staff also proposes to remove the GF Zone District regulations from Cnapter 18~49, CO Commerciil Downtown Distri~t reg~'ltiGns, ind replace them i~ • ne~ cnapter, exclysive to the SF regulations. This amendment is for admtn1stT'l-tiYe c-onyer";ence ."d -.:111 IUI::.I!c the GF distT"ict consistent .. ith other overhy districts such as the Retail Shopping Combining D.istrict (R), the Pedestrian Sh.pping District (P), and the Hotel Oi.tri<t (H), .mich have been established in separate cnapters. Chapter 18.90, Conditional ~se Permits, would .1 •• be ~nd.d to reflect tho .dditio,.l u.e permit finding for exceptions to the GE. BACKGROIINp The SF zone district was established fn lie6 and was intended to encourage retail vitality 1~ the Downtown and preserve the ~xisting mix of ground flOaT commercial uses. Seventy-five percent of th! gro~nd floor iTe_ of each building and ~11 of the f1o~r &rea frontfng on the street is limited to the followfng permitted uses: retail, eating and drinking, personal services, P:\X\fHC.Jc: 5-22-92 Page 1 • • , \' L __ • ... ...,· __ ·_ tnvel igenties. tneati!rs~ and ~otels. Excepticms to these use restl~ictions .ay be gra,t!d w~~n the ground floor vacancy rate reach!s S percent an~ tne subject site ~as been vacant for at least six months. Since adoption of the SF lonp district, no exceptiDn has been granted'. Two sites, 251 University Avenue .nd ~29 Bryant Street. have had the Gf reQulremont removed by virtue of being rezone<: Planned Comunity (PC); During the ,51 University PC Zone change process, members of the Architectural Review Board and Pla~n;ng COImiss10n expressed frustration that there was not a different process for grantlng relief from t~e SF district requlrements whic~ did not in~~'ve findIngs of 'public benefit' for buildings and locations which .re not suited for retall. ISSUE SWEllfftT Tne following issues have lead staff to propose amendments to the GF zone district. Many of t~ese issues have been brought to the stiff~s attention through contact with various Downtown propertj o.mers. Vaclnt Ground Floor Sp.ce After tne approval of tne 251 University PC zone change, four other Downtown property owners and representatives have contacted the City requesting e.caption fro. the GF zone district permitted uses for property located at 520 Ro.ona Street. 165 Hamilton Avenue, 102 University Avenue. and 443 Kipling Street. Their most common reasons are either the Inability to 1.iS. ground floor space to permitted GF uses or t~e 1nability to retain those uses for an extended period of time. Vacant tenant spaces ~:-,~ h;9:-': f"Ul"nOller are rehted. in part, to the loc.ltfon of the property, ilnd to t~. design, il1rC';:.i-' and location of the ground floor space or the bUilding. Easy icce.s and visibility are .ssentia1 elements supporting the permitted ground floor use •• The lack of any of these .1eatnt. can lead to v.cant ground floor space and high tenant turnover. Currently, the only vehicle available to property owners is the zone change or PC Zone change process. Design and location of Downtown Buildings Because the majority of the Downtown commerci.1 buildings predate the establishment of the Gf zone district. ~any b"i1dings were not designed with the current permitted uses in mind. Host of the buildings can be adapted for retail use, however, there are $eve~al examples Df these types of Dld!r buildings in the Downtown that cannot readily support the r.tai1-oriented ground floor uses. B!Jildings designed for specific purposes such as banks. offices, and residentiil US! often lack display wi~dows and visibility to public streets. ThEY ca~ also lack inviting access~ and i~ some Cises stairs and secluded entries are the only means of entry. Existing ground floor tenant spaces may also be configured or located i~ I manner that is not conducIve to serv;ng til. public. and stroctura1ly or practic.11y the building cannot be altered. These ar! i few examples of tne types of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would be applicable to the proposed c~nditiDna~ us~ pe~it process. P;\JC\GfIC.JC 5-22-92 Page 2 t~" l'~' _. -. ~ !, · -; "'\ Existing Ey.cep~fon ProceSi Currently, t~~re is a process in .hicn ground floor Sp~Cf can be ex~mpt from the peraitted SF USE'S. This process is strictl,Y administrlth'e. A ground floor ~pace e~emption is granted upon ipplicatio~ to the Director of Planning and Community enYir~rument when the applicant ~an demonstrate tnat there is a S percent vacancy rite for ground floor spaces. within the GF Zone district and that the subj~ct site has be~n vacar.t for it least six months. Once !xempted. the ground fioor may be occupied by an~ of the uses. permitted in the underlying CO-C zone district for a per1001 not to exceed five years. Since th~ inception of the GF reguhtf.r.s in 198~. ti,e vacancy rite 1n the GF has not reached 5 percent, therefore the exception process has been unz.van.b1e, even t'O thos!!' properties that have remained vacant for six or MOre eonths~ This exception process provides a safeguard for 9r~u"d floor spices fn slow economic times. However, it does ~ot address the ongoing exceptional Dr extraordinary c1rcumstanc!!' related to bui',dtng desi~n. Staff is not reca.mend1ng I c~anQe in the existing exception process, although staff predicts t~at lt 1$ not likely to be triggered fn th! foreseeable fut~re. Locltion Within the GF Zone District Region location of a property wit~in the SF Zone district has also been cited by property owners IS I burden to leasing grDund flo~r space. Properties lotated on the boundary line of the SF Ire often i.ol.ted from toe Downtown core and .re unable to take adYantage of the high visibility and traffic .,soeilted with Univerl1ty Ayenue. These same properties Ire restricted t~ tne retail­ oriented GF ~ses but due to 10c,tion and iso10tlon from estoblished retail areas hove trouble supporting those uses. The Downtown Urban Desi9n Plan is intended to improve the desirability ond e.cit ... nt of all part. of the Downtown, but it will take .any years to iMplement. Individually. tbe property owners cited previously baye contactrd the Cit) reyarding I Zone ch.nge to remoye their property from the SF zone. Staff feels t~at I series of map amendaents to reZGne individyal properties wou1d cDnstitute ·spot-zoning and that the PC zo~e change process is relatively blJrdensome for tne _ajority of tbese cuu. 8ecause the use permit process does not remeY! the property from the GF, when Site conditions c~ange~ such as reconstruction or demolition of i building Dr urban design improvements, prop~rties granted use permits wou1d return tD tke permitted SF uses. PROPOSED 6MEHPMfHIS Staff proposes the follOWing &mendments to the GF zone district in order to address the 1 nfeas; bi 'Ii t1 of the aecas i Dna 1 Qro~nd floor tenant space for rEtail-oriented uses. Tne amendments ire designed to reduce chronit vacancies for the few isolated buildings wnile maintaining the vital ground floor r~tail distrIct of tne Downtown. P: \JC\tif'zc. JC l . - --.,., ~ ..... ""' -~-.'l • ,-. , -..... -~-- Conditiona1 Uses Staff recommends the inclusi~n of conditionll ~ses in the GF zone district. These rec~nded uses ~ncl~de business Dr trade schools. commercial recreatio~, day eire. financial services (txcept drive-in services), general business service, and medical, professiona1 and general business offices. Definitions of these use categories are attached to this report (see E~h;bH AJ. These uses were chosen bocaus., with limited application, they would be compatible with the ~entitted ~F uses, maintain the commercial mix and vitality of the Oowntown, and, in some cases, correspond with t"'e intended use for which a building was originally designed. The focus of th.se uses is purposefl.!lly narrow to avoid an erosion of re-tlil-oriented DOk11town core .. These conditional uses are a suoset of both the permitted and conditional uses in the underlying CO-C lane and, witll the exception of d.y care, include these uses for which sUff ha. experienced de,.and frOll the r •• l .sUt. industry. As opposed to t~e current SF exceptio" process, the propo~ed cnnditional uses do not include all of the penDitted use. fro. the (O-C lone district. Many of those permitted uses, such as animal care, were exc1uded from the conditional use list due to tneir lack of compatibility with the existing land use 00 tne ground floor and lack of demand. Conditional Use Pe .. it st~ff recommends tne adoption of I conditional use pe~it process as the means in which to grant use exceptions in the GF lone district. This process is consistent with all other zone districts that restrict use. The use permit process is used to deter.ine the syitability of a co~itionil U$e for a spec1f1c Site and to d~~~r.ine potentia' adverse ,ffects o~ the e~v;ronment and su·rroundlrl9 uns. Contrary to the existing use penDit process, which by nature of the required findings is enabling, the proposed u.e permit would be more sele<ti •• in its application. 8y design this us. permit process would not apply to the vast majority of properties in the district ""icn have easily acceSSible storefronts. limiting the applicability of the us. permit to unu,u.l ca.es will avoid an erosion of the vita11ty of the Oowntown. For this reason, staff recOWlends the following finding be added to tne use perait process for GF district prop~rties: -The location, access, or design of the ground floor space of the building proposed to house the use, creates exceptional Dr extraordinary cir~um5tanCe$ or conditions appl1cable to the property in.olved that do not apply generally to property in the same district~· By incorporlting this finding into the use pelmit pr~cess, it beComES more like the vlriance proc!~s~ where the burden is on tne applicant to demonstrate the exceptional, extraordinary circumstances dfst i ngui !.t'ting this site from others in the district. P;\Jt\6FZC.JC 5-22-92 Pige -4 _. -. • ,~".-,<,:;;.' "." .~ v'­... ,'"," ..:: '-~~, -.. Ufe of Use Permit Staff rec~nds tr.at use p~~its grant~d to GF zoned properties expirf wit~ the demo11t1on of the building instead of applying to the property forever. is is tne clse with other use perm1ts. ]n ~any cases, the desfgn or '~cation of a build1ng wi 11 bt'! cited as. tne ul'1us(Jal circumstance fof' the benefit of satisfying the additional u •• permit finding_ If the building is demolished, OT substant,.lly re~~deledt the extraordinary circumstance is eliminated and so should t~e condit;~nal use. I~ these cases, the ground floor space would again be restricted to permitted GF uses. Additionally, Oowntown developers should design new buildings to meet t,e current Pede.strh.!'l (PJ and SF combining district regulations. rdentificatior. of opportunities for imposing tho fu"ction and u.ability of .11 parts of tne Downtown are forthcoming in the Urban Design Plan and shD~ld inspire private r!in~e$t.ent. Tne intent of the use pen.it process is to proy;d! relief to ownetS of buildings that are not now designe1 for retail-related uses. The constr~et1on of a new building affDrds Downtown owners th~ ability tc eli.inate ~ny physical barriers to providing retail-type services and for iaposing t~e orient.tion of their building in relation to t'e gr.ater Downtown, pursu,nt to Downtown Urban Design GUidelines. These guidelines are planned for public review and adoption this summer. BEC<»t1ENOATION .Staff recOMmOnds that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Oechrat ion and apprtll:e the Ittached orcfinince. RespectfUlly sUDa1tted, JOSEPH M. COlOllNA Pllnner Attachments: Ordinance location Map Environmental Impact Asse~s~nt Exhibit A NANCY IIAODOX lYTLE Zoning Administrator cc, Stephanie Elkins, 33;0 W. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Gary Zeimet, c/o Grubb and Elli" 379 lytton Ave., P.l~ Alto, CA 94301 Dan Scruggs, IE54 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126 . Rick Barry, 431 Florence Street, Suite 220, Pilo Alto, CA 94301 PhylliS Munsey, P.O. Box 555, P.lo Alto, CA 94302 Bob Stelzer, 379 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alte, CA 94301 P: \.JC\5rZC . .x: 5-22-92 Page 5 '. .+. __ v ... _ ............ ·~"'"'" ... ORDINA-~CE NO •. ~~~~ ORDINANCE OF TIlE COUNCIL OF THE CIT'{ OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 1B (ZONING) RELATING TO GROUND FLOOR USES IN TIlE COMMERCIAL OOWNl'OWN (CO) ZONE DISTRICT The Council o£ the city of Palo AI to aoes ORDAIN as follows: SlICTION 1. Section 1B.~9 .120 [Ground floor (G1') requlations] af Chapter 18.49 [CD Commercial Do''imtown District RequlationsJ of the Palo Alto MUnicipal Coc!e is hereby deletec! and a new section 18.49.120 [Ground floor (GF) regulations] is hereby added, to read as tollows: . SECTION 2, Chapter lB. 50 is hereby added to Title 18 [Zoninq] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as tOllows: 1 :-t I I t t • , • -' 1(1r:=~;~~.:lOfiJ>i;:~I~l~:iif!!".· "erv 1119 nangrau."14lflaor ..... "" • iJ}"c";'?'i&l.l;l; ',otur .!I"" .... C~ ttiia'"·1i2.'"'£Ii."'~lYTh9 "I "''''''-'lItitrtet;,:;praVidad..mch .. """"m.notan . the qr~cfl<ior~ . '.' .. ' ., ·· .. 1....· ...... , .... .•.. .. •.... .. ii:so;040" " v .. ' ui:IiPtfoa~,,'(~z:,,~n'Ciit'iQn'liiayl>e' madii" to Efie'a1rl'iCit0i"~r··p~!1··iitld~t:l'~~i:,;if~,.~·~pt1on fil',~,~lse·. mutt.edlarcol\diti~Y;Pe1"ll:iI:1:;ed9YDUnd floor ~;,tOBilOW: usepUmiit..iif inthBappUc:able underlying CD distriCt ,'if the. fo 11 ol(iJlq co"" i tloris are .net: .' <0 ,," ,_ " '" "'_',C',, .. ;" ",-,", """ '" "," , ,,' ,'.H, , .. '" _ ". ,"'>" ' "c" ., 2 ~-. • >. SECATON 3. Section 18.90.060 (Conditional use permit-- Findings and conditions] cf the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amenaed to read Aa follows: 13.10 .010 Con~it1oAal U8e peralt--l'i:a4ing. &.11.4 CIIolld.ition •• (a) The zoning administrator may grant a conditional use permit in accord with this title if., from the application or the facts presented at the public hearing, be E~~!~, finds: (~) The proposed use, at the propcsed location, wilJ not be detru-ntal or injurious to property or improveDents in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to ~~e public health, aafety, general welfare, or convenience. (2J The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comp~ehensive plan and the purposes,of this title. (b) The zoning administrator ~~y impose such reasonable condi tions or restrictions as he cr:'>S:he deems necessary to secure the purpose of this title and to assure operation o~ the use in a 3 , ,$ :m.anner cc.patible with existing-&nd potential uses on adjoining propcrtiea and in the qeneral vicinity. SECTION 1. The council finds that this project will have no significant ~nvironm~ntal effect. SEC"'l'IQN s. This ordina.nce shall be effectjve on the c-.enceaent of the thirty-tirst day after the date of its .. doption. PASSED: NOES: ABSTElITrONS: A'l"l'EST: City Clerk ~'pPROVED AS 'I'O PORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 4 APPROVED: Mayor city Kana<1er Director of Planninq and community Environment ; .. ,';J " , SITE LOCATION ~ GRA?HIC ATTACHMENT DATE: 5113112 SCALE: 1·· "00' Ip_ge 2) T a S1 AF F REP D R T r.:F-;r L:-:E:-":N::::O-, -:':::'::::-';;'::::0---;' -;,-;.","'-~E~' .~-.......~---;';'F~';';--"" t-~PR-;O~J~E~C-;T~'--~~G-'~'-O-,L'~O~'~'-"~"~'~T-'~'~'~A~m~.~'~'~m~.~"~'~~~----~ ~ " " ---'==~~~~~~~~=-,=.-=~~, , NORTH L '~~<" • " '.~ /<'-' .. :------ cnv1ronment,1 Oecumtnts -City of ?a10 Alto ENYlRQNMEHTAl ASs[SS~ENT Project ~ltriptioTlf1itie: Text amendment to He Ground noot (eF) Zon~l'Ig Qistrict qverlay to establish c~nd1t1onal uses. allowed to occupy ground floor spaces. pgrsuant to the apprpval of a Conditional Use Permit. ThE conditional yse psrmft w;ll include an additional finding related to the uniqueneis of the locatiQTl or configurltion of the property. O~ tnt design of th~ exi~tui~n~9 ____ _ bu114in9· locition/Address: ~PO~wn~t~o~wn~P~aul~o~A~jut~o~ ____________________________________ ___ Sponsoring Agency/Applicant: City of Palo Alto Address and Telephone of Applicaot: 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (4)SI 329,244) Applfcation for: Zone Qrdinance Text Amendment loning .t Pr.je~t locot;.n: "GLf __ _ fee Receipt No.: H"'(l1A'-___ _ NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Based upon re~ie~ of the ~rcject files, th@ u~dersi9ned member of the Planning Department has concluded: IXI Negative pe,Jar,t;on: Th~ project hiS no 5tgnifi~~nt En~i~onmentil impact. No EnvfrGnmental Impact Report fs required. The relsons for a Negative Declaratfcn are~ . in the attached proi!et descript'on and ana1ysis. A record cf"pro;ect ,(tiOD is available far review at the PalQ Alto Pl~nn1"g Department. located on the 5th floor of Cjty H~11! 250 Hamilton A~er.ue. P~l~ Alto. CA 9430], 1=1 The project may h,ve a .ign;ficlnt environmental impact, An Environmental Impoct Report will be prepared, Planning Department Official: -_C1~"""'r(l. ~rl..m..,.~Q..~~L~~. ===-____ _ Planning Director: y~.Iitf:~.L~ Date: c;-bh~ EIAAOD The project hiS been approved, The project has been denied, Oat.: Date: fil. No" 92·fl~'12 r Proj!ct Descriction Tn! City of Palo Alto p~oposes 2on1~g Ordinance text amendment! t~ the Ground floer lGF) lone Oistrict ovoeriay to e.stabHsh: Business or Trad.:a Schoo1s.. '~erc1il Recreation, Day Care. fi~~ncial Servlces, except drive in serYices, General Business Service, and Medical'; Professional and Gerleral Business Offices as condJti~na' tJSe5 1 allowed to occupy ground floor spaces, pursuant to the ~pproval of a conditional use p~Tmit. The conditional use permit would i~clude, 'n addition to ttoe current findings, an additIonal finding which st.tes: 'That due to the location. access Dr design of the ground floor space, tnere are ex:ceptfona1 Dr ext..-aordinary circumstances or c.onditions a,oplic:ab1e to the property 1nvo'v.d th.t do not apply generally to prop~rty in the s.me district. This project would also establish .a Sepal"'ite Zoning Ch"dinance Chapter for tne GF regulat1ons, whey! currently tne regulations are contained within Chapter la~49, CO DIstrict Regulations. Tne addltion.' us. permit finding will be refl.cted in I text modification to Chapter 18.90, Varl.nc •• , Kame Improvement (xceptions and Condltion.l Use Permits. Tne proposed text' ... endments "'ill not h"e • significant adverse impact on the physical envirQnment~ This project will not result in a substantial alteration of tn. present land UStS l" O~tawn Palo Alto for t~e following reasons, First, there are many ex~les of each of the proposed conditional uses throughout the Downtown. Four of the six propostd conditional usts are permitted uses in the underlying CD-C Zone Oistric.t. ,Ho .. ed in nOTi~9TClJnd f10Df SPiCes. The!e I.Ises il"r"e also. clJrrent1,)," allowed to occupy up to 25 percent of the grDund floor areil provided that the use is not fronting on a public street. The two remaining uses are cOflditionaTly allowed in the CD~C Zone District. il110wed in non-ground floor spaces pursuant to the approval of a Conditlona' U.e Permit. ~"owlng .iMilar uses to occupy up to 100 p2fcent of tne ground floor, only in exceptional cases, will not c~use i perceptible change in the Downtown land use pattern. Second, because the proposed conditional uses could only bp. O$tablished in s~c1&' or extraordinary cases. the number of co~ditiona' use permits 9r.nted to propertle. within the Gf Zone District 1s expected to be negl i9; ble. A.; opposed to current, more enabl'ng use permft findings, use permits for GF properties would only be granted in a case where a property or building presented a problem in supporting current permitted \lse:$.. TMs concept wou1d b~ illcoT'1'orated into an additional u~e permit finding. where i. unique or unusual circUQstance must be proven in order to grant approval of a conditional use. Each use pe~;t ~ill be subjEct to l"divldual environmental review, therefore tne potential effects of I conditional use to surrounding neignbllrt,oods and business .. wil' be determined. Use permits Ire not expected tD be granted to ,rominent. eisily actessible store frents .long University Avenue or other predomInantly retail are.s. FurtheMDOre, the proposed text 3~~ndments will not result in the l substa~tia1 physical alteration 'Of existing bui1<1ings. In fatt~ maint.aining U,e existing building design cDuld be cited is an unusual cirClJmstance to satisfy the additional use permit finding. All exterior building modifications and signs will continue to be subject to Architectural Review Board approval. Since rftal1 uses generate higher levels ~f triff1C and ire turrently p~rm~tted in the GF, estabHshing any of the proposed conditional iJses, which tend to generate l(l".4er levels of traffic, wil~ not adversely affect current leve1s of vehicular traffic in the Downtown. Additionally. becil,j.se uses .. i.thin the Downtown Parking • A.sst'uJPent Distdct art-ass?ssed f~r "a.~ldn9 at l blended rat1? of 1 space p~r-250 gross square fe~t cf usabl~ floor area. parking de~and and eXlst5ng deficits. if lny, will nQt increase as a r~sult of the proposed te~t am~ndment5. :;;:', ~ -'~ i . ,,_,0 ~c .,,-' }~_~ ~~ '~_ Exhibit fl. Definitions of Use Categories "BI6Siness Dr C'Idc school" mans a we. except I coI1crc or mriversiry. prn\tjding education or tnitling in busioess. commert:~. ~ or oilier oi!niI>r aaivil"j or pu=i~ and DIlt otborw'.se <!eliDed IS • bam< """'.!pilicn or priva= oduc:aDonal fadIiJy. -Commercial reaeatioc" means a use providinl rccreaDDU, amusement, exercise or emcn.ainmeJll services. including theaten. bowling !mes. billianl puIon. Wting amw. omnasimns. exm:ise stw!ios Dr bcffities. fimess = _ dubs or spas. manU! ara studios. groop_ ins<ruaioo. and similar..m=. operare4 em • priVIle or for-profit bJ.sis. but exc:IudiDg uses defiDed as outdoor recreation scrviocs deliJIe4lll pJbsectjgn (107) (107) "C>uIIIoar =-..me:" m~ • privaIe!y owned or opented 115< providing ~aciI.ities for cra:U1Oor .recreation activities. including iDH'. -. swimming. riding. or otber cutdo~:, .span or rr:cteation, operated pn-domjnmtly in me open. ua:pt for accessory or inddaJta! adosed serrices or .fa.dlides. "Day care c:mter" memo ... y C3l< r.cilily Iiceosed by !be <tale 0' county for DIlmDediQ! daytime em. This I<ml Includes, bw i.s DOt llmired !D. mmay JdlooIs. proschools an<! simiI.rbci!iti<s. Daycalxme. W "F1II1i!y day em: hoau:" m..". 1 !lome IiceJlK<l by !be ..... or COUllly which n:platly provides cate:. protection, and __ of twelve or _ chi!dm! under !be II" ef ci&II=. in 11>< p<OVidef. own Inm .. for periods of kst than IW<DI}'-four hows per day. while !be """"'" or ~ are ..... y an<! Illc!udes !be li>IIawinr: (i) "Larp f1ll1i!y day care home" means I home wbidl provides fmily can: to scvc.c 'CD tv.'elve children, inclusive. including cbildraI under age eighteen wbo reside at <II< bame. This = Indlldes, but is not limited "'. DUneI)' IchoolJ: • .preschools. and .similu bciIities. ( .. ) "Small fomily d.y care bomc" moans 1 Inm. wbic!J provides fillDlly day = to sil: or fewer children. including &:hildmt under Ii" eighll'Cll who reside II tbo bam,. This renn ir>cludcs. but is DOt llmired to. ""~ ,;:boo!!. P=booIs. and simiI.tr facilities. ~ (8) "Adult d1y CIRi bo::ne" means use of 1 dwelling anit 0' !'Omen 1!>cteof. !!ccued by the IUt: or eowuy. f'or daytime C";;m and sup;rvision of lW<lvc or fewe: penons. Ibovc the age of eigbreen. ODd includes !be followq: (i) "Lure adult 4.y can: hom," .til ea:t!! I; hoale wb.icll provides diy time care of seven to rwdve .... .ults. (u) "Smill adult day <are horne" me3liS a rome which prodcfcs ~y time can: ro .six or fewer adults. "FiIIDlly day =<: !>om," moans use of I dwelling unit or portion !!tacofli=<l by the ~tat: for t!zytime care of up to ;W persons. lllClu<!ing cIllIdreo tllrough age si>:= wiIhin tbo f=ily 0<XDpyiJlg suc.b dwclling anie Thine"" includes nu=ry sdloo!!. preschool<. 2nd simihr facilities. A family d.~ care hom. fer tb< e1dcrly need DC< be """ a=-, "General busil:JcQi scmce'" means a usc engaged in Ales, servicing. installation, iIlld. repair services. or !:he performance of activities aM S<IVices of<ll< gmora! narure deS<nbo:! in <his 5!:Crion. iru:ltoding printing. blucpn nung and puhlishi ng. ",,",,,,.mal bakeries. =am,rios ., catering. cabiDeIr)' and furniture repair, bull< cle.aning and l,aundry Rrvices. (rncluding a service W[ provides claning Of laundry services lor cl~ and hundry s:wjons on o~r sites), lumber. plumbing. elecrricaJ, sheet met.1l. aruj other consuuctioo alii:! building ECaIeri ils, and """,,,obile pam and supplies. _.----"-,,---_._--"- , . Exhibit A Continued -:Medica! DffiCl:!" ~ a use providing CC)DWltcjog diaposiJ. ~c, preventive. or eontC1ive personal Ul:atmc:c.t se~ices by doctor. cfcnIis1s, malical m! _1abo1'it!Dries. mI simil>r ~ of medical arul he>llng .... for 1ImIwIs.1ice!Istd for IIUcb proai'" by u.. stile of C>llfonIj,t mI incl""''''1 seM«s .. wed II> medical resw<:h. 1dlUl, mI malysis but t<,,,,,,ir'i _ ofba='dous _als I:!...".. of allowanc:c:s' 'til ai'''''' irlTule J7 etfthis: GOI:k -p,mes.sionaJ. o.ffiQ;" means a .use pn>YidlnJ pof<SSiaul or CCftSIlItinJ servjca in the Ii el4s of I.,.. ."'l:itectu~. ~.sign. ~.~ oed simWrp<Wessiom, ~ .. "'Xi""" produa '"""'" ml p!<l1Dl)'pe developm= but e.c\u4inl product m!Dll· ~ 0: us=b1y mI ex.ciudi:ll "'" of baza."dous materials in ...... of !be ~ mn!1!'ned in TItle 17 of1llis code. ·Gmeral bwine:s:s om.ce'" me.ans a me ptillclpalI1 pnwIcIiIJ& scMca lD iDdividuw. AmIs. or ocb:r t:DIiI!es, iDcIac!iD& but "'" IimiIE<! 10 ruI -. iDswmI:>e, JlII>IlelIY mmas=­ Iitlc compa.nies. iI1vcsImcm, pc""""". tn.veI. >lid simllu oemces. >lid iIIcl1J6inr business of6oos ofpablic: _ or 0Iber1Clivities _ Ibo..met Iax!ertd IIIb1tCUSUllUrily mod ..... _ adatiuisuilli.-eomct..mea.