HomeMy WebLinkAbout0255.095•
•
TO:
FROM:
DUE:
SUBJECT:
pro[JfSf
i:.--',-
City GfPalo Alto
City l\-fanager's Summary Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CI1Y MANAGER
May 22, 1995
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
CMR: Z5S:9S
MidtOWll Markel Analysis Follow-up
Mille City Council study session held on March 'l7, 1995, the Council requested staff 10
return with an integrated set of recommendations 10 revive the .<:<lnomic vitality of the
Midww. Neighbornood Commercial Shcpping Center. Staff requests City Coo nciI
membets review and approve the series of steps presented i" this report.
RFmMME!l.'DATIQN
. III boIh City sIaft". and !he Midtown Market Analysis consultant's opinion" a publici private
partnership could be instrumental im assisting MidtowR property owners in private
redevelopment and building rehabilitation efforts. Staff recommen<Js that:
a. The City assist property owners in their efforts by playing I 'convener' role in the
form of silo pla.'1 preparation. to be privately funded by toe property owners, wilh
City staff facilitalioo of pi ... prepar1!oon and community input to the process. The
produce of !his exercise would be I cooceprual master plan foe the MidiOWD. CO<'e
area sbowing !he general buikfUlg locations an<J square footage of anchor lenants
and .mall shops, and attendant parking are .. 00 a cenler-",-ide basis.
b. ConIingenl upon !be property owners' decision 10 fund and undenake !he COOcepl'Ja1
master plannir.g exercise. as outlined above. staff recommends p<ocee&ing with the
following two pha..<es:
I) TIle Cily relain !be services of. traffic engineerinl! consultanllo (.) provide
IeChnica/ assis'"""", 10 the conceptual site planning .~ercise. should the
CMIlt25S:95 hi< I 0111
5
· , ~-:-:. '
o
comll".ercilll property ownen proceed, and (b) \0 de\errnir.e the proper
location of a signalized "ntry into the commercial cenlor (should ODe ~
nocessa,y) and 10 evaluate !he a!\oopated traffic impacts of • h>o-Iane versus
foor-11U'IC Mldd1efield Road corJigurafun.
ir) The City retain Ibe ser;k--es of a qualified rewl financial consultant 10
provide a p«rforma analysis of !he site plan alternatives within the Midtown
<:Ore area.
phase U
f) The City investigate the preparation of. companion zoning ordinance. which
could be ca!lod!he Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Ce~te< Zone, that
spells out the purJX>Ses of neighborhood commercial cenlers in Ille Ci:y and
defines those .... " perm; "iNe within the districL
iJ) The City initiate a enange i. the zoning ardinaoce 10 allow oon-cornplying
.tnK:t1J res 10 rebuild a' oc below elUsting floor area ratios. so long as the
project does not result in greater non-compli ance on any specif>e property.
This provision could apply 10 ~ldtO"'D only. 10 all fou~ of the City".
neighborhood commercial cenfers, oc it could include all of the E1 Camino
Real areas of the City. It is staff " recommend.fun that the .pp!kafun of
this cl"lI1gt 10 oon-complying structures apply initially only 10 Midtowa. but
iliat other areas of !he City be analyzed fumr fae relief 10 the n0n
complying structures provisions.
ill) The CIIy direct staff 10 draft I policy permitting the C~'-owned parking lot
10 be used as credit foe parldng required foe ground fIooc re·n5O of structures
withi" the Midtowa core area.
This sWf report eJq>lores a number of issues !hat may be helpfol 10 tile Counct1 in
undentandillg botl1 the publ:ic .nd private seclo< influences on neighborhood commercial
cenk'.n within Ibe City. Those specif>c 10 Midto'u include f.ctoes sllCh as:
..... 1ofl7
" "~~< , i -
A ~
• "The Midtowa Neighborbood Commercial Center evolved over a JO 10 40 year time
perlOO os I series of private property development. with individual building',
genenIly unrelared 10 one .,..other physically, and with inadequate on-site parking.
• Public &ecIor factors influencing tile si!ual;"n in M"Kltown include 5",,11 issues as
parking, !lOIH:Omp!ying structures, building code require menU, neigbborlwod
commercial zoning provisions. and traffic and signalization issues.
Specifically, !his report and severa! companion reports on Midtowa wo.-k Ioward
IOOlmplishing Ihroe oojectNes for tile area: (1) the idel1litk .... tion 0{ physkal and regula\Ol)"
COlISIrainu endemk 10 !be area's eecoomic decline; (2i L'>e iden~fic.tion of commercial
property owners. n,ercbanl, and publicfneighborhood coo·;erns; alld (3) the design of.
pubfu: process llIat provide •• 'fit" for addressing t,"ose issue. identif>ed in (\) ... '\Ii (1)
abo\-e. 1be Comprehensive P1an Advisory Committee ,,'orkshop on Midtown provides In
ex<dleol sta11ing pain! for !!le identi.fialtion 0( neighborbood concerns in ~nd!OWIl. There
wu subotantial coosume£ preference information garnered. from the ",,",ly 700 resident
qu<3Iionnaires r«eived from M"Klto",., the latter 0( ",~jc1, w,,-, conducted ill conjunction
wllh !he Mtdto ...... Market Analysis. In sd<f:60n, the Business and Economic. &ction of
!he ckaft policies oflhe Comprehensive Plan Updal<o is highly supportive of neigbbodlood
~ renter reviIaIization in Palo A.'lo.' Finally, the Midtown ResidenU Associ.tion
has regularly met and provided inPUI 10 the City throogh tlle ir cbosen representatives and
ill geoenIlIlCeIing bums aimed 01 identifying neigbborhood issues related 10 Midtowa'.
COIIIDlCl'Cia! trea. 1be proposals contained in this report attempt 10 integrale ali oflhe on
going efforts in Midtown, with a primary goal 10 assist M'Kltow. commercial property
OWDers ill making d>c considered investment decisions on their properties necessary 10
r.chieve 1be center"s revitalization.
FOlIC)' IMPUCillQNS
In Che Midtow1I Markel Analysis coosoltanl's opinion, the key ...... foi !lie finl effOOs of
major revitalization is the area comprising tI-,e oortbeasl corner of the M'ldto",. Shopping
Center. The consultant recommends tIlat tile long-term ,evitalization of Midtown will
entail substantial redevelopment, necessitating both private seCSor i ovestment and C;;-y
I , facilitation.
SUfI co",-....... wltlJ tile consult.nt'. assessment tIl.t redevelopment of the Midtown
Shopping Center is nece"MY for iu long-term ecoool'lic viability. Ii is also recognized,
,
o
however. !hat private redeve1opmeol en!aJl •• coordina6ve approach and owner investment
_11 thaI may require ,ublltantial time 10 effectuate.
City assistance in facilitating bed! mlen,n llse of structures &r,d phased redevelopmenl
planning cooId be accomplisbc:d via public privale partnering. provided that 1m City Council
llIIdcntands acd is wmfortable with playing • different role in assisting private
~dforts. Traditiooal c,ty roles, and these the! repr=nt a departure from past
pra<:tke, can be idenlilkd as follows:
NEWROL£S
'The role of the City as 'convener" or fa..-ilil1!lor in assisting privale owners in land use
planning on pri""te property.
The role of the City in pr,y;iding consulta.'\t services 10 assist propmy owners in
identifying investment stnolegies necessary foc MidloWR unter redevelopzr.ent and
building rehabilitation effom.
TRADITIONAL ROLES
The role oC the City in conducting. traffic study 10 identify options for signolization
Iild Middlefield lane configuratioD$.
'The role oC the City in identifying and conducting necessa:y zoning regul.tion and
development review process cbanges 10 facititate private seclOf' commercial uses.
DSC,u, IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the next steps that the City decides \0 undertake is initially dependent
Ilpo«l the strategy pursued by the private p<operty owners. If Ille property owners proceed
1>ilh the site planning ."eFCise as discus sed in this report, staff recommends !he retention of
• tnIffic engineering consultant 10 conduct the If affic study. and to contnoct with. '{ualified
mail and financial p!snning consultanllO conduct. pro-foona analysis and 10 prcvide retail
input to the process.. The Phase II ..,ning oramance changes, mel "ding L'>e possible cre.ti.~n
of. new neighborhood commercial shopping center zone, could involve sublltantial staff time
and' pos:SJ.'ble consultant assistance in ordinance preparation and cornpa.ruon enviroruncntal
assessment, and will be addressed in a subsequent CMR 10 City Council k is antidpated
fhat the preliminary traffic &na!ysisre'luired fo< PI1.", I ,.ill cost $15,000, provided that the
staff will Jl<escnl !he findings and policy imp&a60ns of the study at Boards and
' ... 40117
-.
•
Commissions meetings. C<>nsulta,Il costs for the pro-fonna analysis are estimated 10 be
$1,500.
UHIBITSIATIACHMEN'fS
Exhib'.t A Emling F AR.'s Mel th"'" permissible within the Midtown core area under
currel!l Or<fmance provi s1o"'L
Exhibit B Sales Tax from Mk!town and comparative neighborhood shopping cenlers.
Exhibit C 1988 SIaIf Report addres';ng rebuilding of oon-complying structures in the
downtown area.
Exhibit 0 Map of property ownersl-Jp patterns within Midtowc. Core Area.
PREPARED BY: CaxolJanseR. Manager. Economic Resource. P1.""ing
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant C~)' an.gor
cc: Mldtowa M.rht Analysis SUOCommittee Midtow" Residents As:;ociation
Mid10Wl1 commercial property owoerilagents
CMa~L.~~--------------------
($
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
SVlIJECT: MidtoWll MlIrket Analysis Follow-up
Bf:CflMMFJSDATIONS
In boIh City staff'. and Ibe Midlown Marl<et An3lysis consultant's opirJOI", • public1private
partnership cooId be instromental in assisti og Midtown pr"l"'ny owners ill private
re4evclopnlCot and bllllding rebabilitation efforts. Staff recommeoos that:
t. The City assist propert)I owners '!llbeir efforts by playing. ·e<lOve ..... • role in Ibe
form 0{ site plan preparation, \0 be privately funded by Ibe property owners, with
City staff facilita!ioo of Plan preparation and communi!)' input \0 the process. The
product 0{ Ill; .... rcise would be • conceptual masler plan foe the M"ld:own core
orea s~.owing Ibe generallxnlding -locations and square footage 0{ ancbar tenants
and linal\. 'OOps, and attendanl parking areas on I cenler-wide basis.
b. Comingenl upon the proper!)' owners' <ledsian 10 fund and undenake the conceptual
maslU planning exerci'!e, as ootlined above, staff recommends p<oceeding with the
following two phases:
I) The City retain the services O{. tramc engineering consultant \0 (I) provide
technical assistance \0 Ibe cooceptuaI sire plarming exercise. should the
commercial property owners p<oceed, and (b) 10 delennine the p<oper
location of. signalized entry into the commercial cenler (shoold one be
necessary) and 10 evaluate Ibe anticipated traffic impacts 0{ • two-lane versus
four-lane M"tddle6eld Road conti gUTalion.
ii) The City relain l!,e services of • qualified relail financial consultant 10
provide lpro-fucma analysis O{the sile plan a1lernatives within the Midtowa
core Ires.
Pa,e' of 11
-.
,-' <. .
, ~-.. ,"'~
o
Phase II
I) TIle City investigate !he preparation 01 • companion zoning crdinance, "'hlch
could be called th<: Neighborbood Commercial Shopping Center Zone, that
spells out !he p!llpOSCs of neighbocbood commercial centers in tI>e City and
defines those uses permissible .. ·jthin the district.
il) The City initiate a change in the zoning Cil'dinance 10 .now no'l-COmp/ying
slrU<-"!Ures to rebuild at or below exi sting flooc area raw, so long as the
pro~ does not result in greater non-compliLoce on any specific propel1y.
This provision could apply \0 Midlown only, 10 an four of the City's
neigbborllood commercial ce nlers. ()( it coold i nelude .n of the EI Camino
Ru.l areas of the City. It is staff • s re""mme ndation !hat the application of
litis change ID llOIH:OIIlplyjng structures apply initiaU y ooly 10 MidloWII, but
!hal oilier areas of the City be analyzed further foc relief 10 the DOn
complying sInlctures provisions.
ill) The City direct staff 10 draft. polky pennitting Ibe City-<>wned parking lot
10 be used as credit for parking required for ground flooc re-esc of structures
wilhi. the MX!!OIiIB core area. .
BACK6ROIIND
III lui)' 1994, Il1e City Council approved I consultant Coolract with Keyser Marston
Associ8leS.1nc. 10 conduct the Midlow" Market Analy,is. \'Ilhen complete, the study was
presented 10 the City Council on January 21, 1995. On March 27, 1995, • City Council
sIUd) session was held 10 discuss !he Midtown Market Analysis ... ·here the consultant gave
I brief presentation and answere<! Council members' questions.
DlSCI!8.<jIDN
AI the City Council study sessk>n, Tim Kelly, the consultant who prepared the MKltOWD
Market Analysis. was asked w~.t facIors contributed 10 the economic decline ia M"ld!OWD.
Due 10 limited time foc discussion, I number of issues were 001 addressed that "'.Y be
he\pfullO the Council in understanding boll! the public and private sectO<' influences on
neighbocbood commercial centers withi. lbe Cily. Those pertinent 10 M"ldtOWD are as
follows:
PIp' 1 0111
•
"" :--r
,-'"" ",". "-.'
1. The "fdown Ncighbornood Commercial C. nler evolved o-.'er I 30 10 40 year time
period as a series of private property developmenU with indivjdu21 b"iklings,
genenI!y unreIa!ed 10 one a.'1Other physically, &00 with inadequate on-!;!e parking.
Some of the structure' were intended for single pulJ'O'e tenancy, such as the
Midtowu Mulcet ar.d Be<gmann·. Department SIO<"e, thereby severely restricting
",-leasing efforts wileD tOOse buildings bec~me vacanl. Multiple prcperty &nd
buiIdiI1g ownotship. obsolescence of structures, high expectations of property values
and eJ<lensive investment requirements for tenant-funded improvements bwe been
major privaJ.e SOCIa< factors leading 10 :he Center'. economic declin<. While some
recem evidence of commercial rell! reductions is ."";biled, renls have frobably not
been r.:duced in proportion 10 the steep decline in retail sales in M"ldtown.
2. Public secIOr hclOts influencing tlte situation in Midtowa, as perceived by staff.
include the following;
•. Parking -Nearly 45 years ago, .n .. sessme'" district was formed within the
MidlO",," core area 10 create I parking lot for general neighbocbood cenler
use. nat k>t (comprised of 76 parking spaces) was pUfcbas.:d by ooly a
portion of the owners within tbe area. and included the lFien owners of
MidtOWll Marlret, Bergmann" Oepartmen! Slore, Midtown Really. Bay Area
Acti<>n. and the WeI!. Fargo Bank buildings. No res!rlclions on use or
aIlocaIion of spaces W<>Ie placed on :he parlcing lot. r. 1972 the assessments
were paid off, bUI the ownership of the lot has alway. been the City of Palo
Alto. While generu use of the p"'king lot coniine"'" (i.e. DO dedk"t""
parking 10 on)' partkular building), 'credit" fO( those spaces, either in whole
c< in pari. was no! permitt.:d for any buildi ng re-use. Unlike tFie Downtowll
or California Avenue assessment district areas where re-use of a building 10
any retaillenanl is permissible wimout peoviding additional parking, the
Midtown area zoning requires that each peoperty owner provide additional
on-site parking for changes i. use or minor building oddilions thaI require
mcce parking. Thi. peovision (w~jch is also aw\X;able 10 the City's othor
oeighbocbood and service commercial districts) does not allow offi.;e, 10
convert to retaH~ or standw retail to convert 'ID j"e"staurants~ etc .• ,,;:thout
provi<fmg aM,tiona! parking. Consequently, mon) of 1!-", requests roc
cbange of use ever time or foc mlooc building additions it'l Midtown have
been discouraged or denied.
CMJI:l5595 I'll". I of 17
-c :;. :
-""'" .J,: _, -:."
,"",.
-,
'.
_ " 't
b. NorKomp/ying stru<:lures -Non-romplying stru<:tures are tbo>e thaI would
DOt meet 0.. required pbyskal parameters of the zornng, such as ~tb.cb.
OOghl IimitauOIl5. floor area ratics, etc. that the curreil! orotnance .now •.
MidloWD •. "hibits • number of non-complying huMU1gS, inclooUlg the
Bergmann', D<:partmen! SlOfe, Midtown Marleet. Wen. Fargo Bank
Building, Bay Area Action office building, etc. In partkular, flooc 4lU
ntics presenl • major proble m, in lh.1 .ny .!nJ<;ture thai exceeds !be
allowable A floo< Area Ratio (F AR) ca nnct be added oolG, eve" if the
addition is very minor in nature and is importanl \0 lIlat particular re!aller',
opecation.<. More importantly. if tile property owner', desire is 10 replace
.... exi.<tir.gtxnlding. as opposed \0 ",habilitation. tbe .4 FAR limitations 0(
0.. CN district pr",·.i1 In the case of the Bergmann', building. which
currently has • 1.59 FAR (including meuanioe, 1.01 FAR excluding
mezzanine)., this means thar any new construction would be limited to •
3,637 square foot bUIlding, wbere I 14,415 square foot building currently
exist.. In .!aff'. opinion, Ill.n: is little (J£ no incentive 10 redevelop
properties where Ihese conditions ex;;'I, evea if private redevelopmelll is the
more cost-effective (011 • per square foot basis) and/or the
owner's/developer', preferred alterna:1ve. This same ordinance provision
applies throughout the CiIy, w'.th the exceplion of Ille down!o",. area. ",he~
I code interpretation was approved by the City Cooncil in 1988 to .llow
reconstruction of ooo-hislori<: buildi ng' at existing FAR<.
e. Building rode requirements -Curren! City of Palo Alto Building aoo Flte
Code. may impact tIt. cost of building reh.bilitatioo efforts substantially.
1be rodes, which are City ordinances suJl!>!cme ntal10 Slate of California
Uniform Building and Fire Cedes, essentiall~ require seismic upgrades and
installation of sprinlders 10 all structures where building rehabilitation and
lenan! improvem.:nts eKceed 50% of !be building value. In an 0( the City's
reiglthldto<rl coromercial areas and along the E! Camino Real and environs,
Ibis provision is hl:-ely to be iovoked with TO-"se of Slructures, partkularly
where I change of occupancy is involved (as frem 8utOln()(!ve service to
office c< retail), <>r .. 'here the tenant imprD'llemen! costs ere relatively high.
(as with restaurants .. wbere kitchen f.quipment (sto\o'es, duct systems etc.) are
included in the value 0( lenant improvements). The bU11ding ·value" is .
based 00 I sliding scale tlt at tokes into ace"" III the use of the building and
type of construction. Tni, code prD'lli,i on ba, bee n fue i mpelu, f« a few
oowntowD multi-stO<)' building upgrade. to meet current seismic and fire
".,>
, -
, .
'. -.'
"
prev.ntion standard.. However, the potential commercial reDt> 10 be
Sleaned from upgra<kd structures iD the downtown i. ,ubstandilly JUgber
than one can expect wit!,in the City's neighlx>chood commercial or EI
Camir.o Real strip commercial are... The eccnomics are .... follows: if the
coslll of relIabilitatloo and tenant improvements matcll or .,coed the cosls of
new coostruction, it i. in the owner'., developer's or !enant's best interests
10 rebuild, If the building is r.on-comj>lying, however, one cannot rebuild
without losing FAR Q[ Cltller entltkments. "hich <>fiend mo. reDders the
project economicaJly infeasible. It is • "Catch 22" that property OWDerJ
throughout l'-: City regularly face, and • significant contributor, in stall's
opinion, 10 the economic decline of the city's neighbo.-bood a.'l(\ strip
commercial rew1 areas.
d. Neighborhood Commercial (eN) Z<>ning -Tbe City', neighOOrbood
rommercial zoolng distIict h .. e>'oIved over Ii me, and largely reflects 1.'-:
citizenry', desire in the 1970'.10 limit uses within the companion Servkc
Commercial (CS) di.trict that envelops much of the EI Camin.:> Real. In
essence, the neighborhood commercial zone distinguishes itself from the
se.rvice commercial woe iD NO ways: autOOlotive safe:s and services are
allowed in CS and prohibited or res!iick:d in CN; and varioas other ares in
the CN district are "capped" in size In order to address the issue of scale and
nature of operation of neighOOrbood versus more regior.ally oriented strip
commercial. W1IiIe both zone. generally permit a .4 FAR. community
expectations ol .se in the eN OLs!rict reflect a mOre "Mom and
PopINeighbodlood' look and feel Ihan !!tat expected cockr the City'. service
commercial zoning, (k"ce, the eN district restricts the size ol grocerf
store. 10 20,000 square feet; per>O!lal services 10 2500 square feet; and so
on. Tbese provisions were placed in an effort 10 control seale and ese, but
Il1cir irnpo5ilion bas hael • number of ~nintended negative ronsequences.
Grocery store space needs bave long surpassed the 2Q,ooo square foo(
maximum size; personal sen'ices .. such. as "hair styling salons. which are
ordinarily perceived as highly desirable within neighborlLood commercial
areas, m.ty be unduly restrlcted by eN zoning 'caps," ek:. More
importantly, all ol the zooing provisions were predicated on a ,ite-by-slte,
individual property onaly.i. by .so and pbysical d<-velopmeru paramo!ers .
. III contrast. successful neighborhood commercial centers e~'ubit an
integrated 'WoadllO the issues of relall commercial and .",vice ~se by size
and Iocaoonon the overall site, re~ard1e" of individual property Qwnership,
, ,
"t ill· -~ :..
. .1-~_:<
o
In particclar. estaI>!i.nment of the physical .in: and use re~tionship5 between
anchors and salenile sbops is essential 10 fue unde .... !aOOing 0( neighbocbood
C<lfIImeJ'CiaI ""niet redevelopment -by all interested parljes -tl!e commercial
property owners, merc~ants, and surrounding res.idents_
e. Traffic and Signalization Issues -While traffic is offen ciled as " major issue
;n Palo Alto. and the MidtowR area is no «coplion 10 thi •• it is staff's
opinion tllo1 fue <kbate on signalization Ioc.tioo and two-I."", .. e"as fO<Jr
lane configuration of Middlefield Road has had li,.\1e or no effect on the
economic decline eJ<!ubiled in M>dtowa. On-site dreulation within the
rommen.-ial C<n area has been along-term p<oblem, and was L~e subje<."1o(
I City funded study prepared by DKS in 1987. Unfortunately, the
recommendations 0( the study were DOt implemented, possibly due 10 the
need to garner multiple (}wner;hip 19reemeols and "xperufi!ur~s foe
impIemeotation. In ronsideratioo of traffic issues~ however. staff feels it
importanllo underscore those pertinent 10 Iiie Midlo", .. Shopping Cenler;
(l) The Comprehensive ptan Advisory Committee woeksbQp 00 Ibe
MidtowR Shopping Center area conduc!'" ". May 14. 1994 provided
substantial groundwork in :he identification 0( publ~ and
neighborhood concerns in MidloWQ. Doe 0( !be ou!comes 0( tile
wodshop was the suggestioo foe • more "friendly" .!reet
configuration in MKllown !hat could be instrumental in tying the fOO!
corners 0( the neighborhood commercial center togeL'ler. and ill
general 10 creating • rnoce pedestrian eC'vironment within the
M"tdtow .. aIea. This configurafion ",'as predk.red upon reducing
M"Jddlefleld Road 10 two-lanes ver;us four-lanes. and pcovidlng on
street parking aloog bo<.h sides of Middlefuld. &.-veral sections 0(
Middlefield currently are tv,o lanes, and some eJ<!ubit similar traffic
counts 10 the M">dtown commercial area Middlefield Road section.
Physically, however, i! is oct possible within the existing right·o(-way
to accornmudale two 1Iu0ugA lanes of Inffic, patlring on bo\h sN\es
0( Middlefield Road, and proleCIed left turn lanes ir. the center 0( the
road. A two-lane conj'iguntioo is possible .. 'th paralkl p~ng on
one side, as is • twc>-Iane section 1>ith bike paths on both sides. What
div.moo 0( tram" \0 odler streets may occur if Middiefield Road is
reccnfigured is unknown, however. unless current I S!udy is
conducted l1latinvestigares these rssues. hi e~t1ler scenario (i-c-, two.-
Paae Ii of 11
.,
"
:'-.,.
.-.'-
~
lane£ or four-lanes), the curl>-to-curb configuration and width of
M">ddIeJield Road is DOt anticip"led I<> cbange. AnecdoUl dis<:ussioos
... ilh boI1I existing and potential tenants in M"!d!O\llg suggests !hit the
~Iane versus four-lane debate is not a priority issue in their retail
marketing <fforts.
(n) Tbc M"tdlown commercial area currently has two signals -a four .. ay
traffic signal al the ColoradolMiddletield in=tion and • pedestrian
crossing signal near the inte=ctioo ofM"ld<!Iefield and Moreno. The
latter .ignal was installed in 1991, primarily 10 address safety issues
of pedcstri"-",, crossing Oil M"lddlefield Rood. Since the focus of tbat
study was 10 look al pedestrian crossing safety, and DOt ingress and
egress from the coromereiai core area, the signal as installed serves
• very limited purpose. No traffIC signal presently exists 01 the
prima,)" entrane," 10 the Midtow n core area. A letter from the
VJdtown Merchants and Property Owne rs Association req';ested
support foe • new signalized inlersecti<>n al the entrance 10 the
Mid!<>wn Markel in «de, 10 accommodate I major drugslOre
operati<>n whose coqJO<'2te policies require comer and/or signalized
entry Iocati<>ns. '\\,hik.· relocated· signal from the Co-q>IMorellO
area 10 the M"tdtowa Markel e otrance might appear 10 resolve the
situation, &oat option is problem atic. Tbc pedestrian signal installed
at Moreno and !.r oddIefield cannot be ~sed f« • vehic" lar traffic
slgnal at the major ent.~ 10 M"odl.owo Markel. The impfications of
signal relocati<>o and new signal installati<>o are poIentially significant,
.. 'Id require public expenditure and policy determination from the City
Council. The fundamenlal question regarding both traffic and
signalization is this· if MidtO'N. is 10 undergo redevelopment and/oc
significan! building rebabilitati<>n iD order 10 be ecooomkaDy vi.ble,
.... h.t !raffic iss lieS need \0 be resolved iii «de< 10 facilitate these
private $Octo< efforts~
POucy IMPlJCATIQNS
Ia tile Mi<IIOwa Market Analysis consultant's opinion, the ley are. for the first efforts of
major ~ is the area comprising the northeasI corner of the Midto"'D Shopping
Collier. Howe>er, the consultant emphasized thaI building rehab'litati<>n of the existing
iIInICIUleS aIonc would DO! materially reverse the ecooom>c problems of the area (Ner the
I'll&< u eC 11
.,
,-".
I o o
lon, lenD aDd creale the dynamic oeighborl;ood th.t ~'le residential community desires.
1lle coosultant recommend. that the long-!erm revitalization 0( J-rJdtOWD will ental1
subslAllliol rc<kvelopment. necessitating both private sector investment and City
faciIitalion.
Staff concun "with the consultant', assessment Ill.t redevelopment 0( the Midtown
Sbowing Center is necessary foc it5long-term economic vi.milly. It is als<> recognized.
1Ioweva. Iha! pri'''''' redevelopmenl enlalls a coordir.ative approach and owner investment
SIraIegy Ihat may require substantial ome 10 effectuate. In addition, it may be desirable
10 atc::ODlIDOIIat • com1>ina600 0( phased redevelopment in Midtown. along with building
rd:tabiIita.tio efforts, as some structures bave inlenm use cap3b-ilities, City assist:mce in
facilitating botb interim ~se 0( structures and pltased redevelopment planning coole! be
aa:omplkl,ed as follows:
I. 1llere is a very real need for Mid,o""" Commercial Center propcrl~ 0"''"'''.
particularly within the coce area, 10 determine whal tbeir ultimate pla". are foc
commercial re~investmen( and cootlnued in\'~\lement in ~f'Jdtown. Until tbe
commercial property owners determine !he;" role and desired investnrenl stra!egy
in MidtowR, priva!e seclOr redevelopme nt will 00( occur. The city could assist in
their elJ<lm by pbfolg • 'convener' role in the form 0( Site pl.n preparation, 10 be
privately fundod by the property owners, ",jtb City facllitation in the plan
prepara6on. Facilit.a600 ,,,,,Id be in the form 0( meeting scheduling, use 0( City
cooference facili6es, a£Sistance in the arcbite<:tural selection process, and inclusioo
0( slakebolder input 10 the proc<:ss. This would enable property owners 10
invcstigale redevelopment scenarios that include more tIlan one property •• s
follows:
A coocep!uaI mastu plan(s) coold be p,epared f<l< tile Midto"'"R coce area showing
the genecal building locations and square fOOlJlge 0( .ncb.,.. lenants and small sbops
and parking. There could be several plans generated, particularly if pit_sed
Jt<!c,veJopmenl were anficipated 10 occu<-10 order 10 prQvide sWreholder input 10
those planning "frons. staff recommends ~'le use 0(. lVocking group sinular 10 that
eslablisbed for the prepar>600 0( tile Midtowo Market AnalYSt'. where commercial
~ owoers. residents' a.ssociation representatives, mercbant representatives ..
and commercial real .estate brokers/developers were participants in. the entire
process -consultant selecooo, draft report fe',""', .nd prese nt.tion 10 constituent
members 0( the community. In this "'.~. each member 0( the working groop !lcts
as an ambassaOOc 10 their constituency. whik retairung tile primary focus 0( the
, .
group -10 FneraIe economically " .. sible plans upon which M idtowo' J commercial
property owners no formulate their investment strategy_The concepIUaJ master
planning process u envisioned 10 be ph ased, ",!lete the generatioo of conceptual
plo a1temativ .. with prelirr:in3ty tr&ffu: input represents the first pI1ase. 18
roojuncOOa with 1be preparation 0( the conceptual master plan alternatives, shoukl
1be tomrnt:tW property owners opt 10 proceed, the City should rewn the services
of • !nffic engineer 10 (a) provide technical support I? the conceptual master
planning efforts; (b) clelennine the proper location of • si~narued entry into !be
commercial center (should one be neees .... ") and; eval uale the anticipated traffic
impacts of. two-lane versus four-lane Middlefield configuration.
Pbase n would involve !be preparation of companion zoning cbanges lllat {<>CU. on
!be creation of llcighborllood commercial cenlers as opposed 10 individual eN zoned
prqlO<!ies (see 2 below.) The conceptual master plan would ultimately be subjecl
10 a pOOIic review process Ibat cwld involve an initial pre-scree,,;ng application .nd
• Iilrmal approval process fashioned after the Ci!y'. Site and DesigIl Review, with
ArclU!ecturaI Review Board (ARB) and I1anning Commission (PC) input. Ind final
CityCoancil (CC) approval. One of the many advantages 0( pI1asing the·process
in 1his manner u that building e1evatioos woold not be necessary roc the conceptual
site planning process. as .ub<equenl buM: ng desigo would be dependent upoD many
fadon, including individualtenanls' needs. Architectural costs 10 the commercial
property owners are also minimized I>y the use of. sman ,,·orld", group for the
coocepIUaI plan preparotion.
2. Phase I! of!be cooceptual .".aster p1anrung exercise s.!,oold !le accompanied by staff
p-eparatioo. of. new zone or zoning revisions 10 address the issues of nel:gbborbood
rornmercial ""nlus. For lad, of any <>!her term. the new zone could be called the
Neigbbornood Commercial Shopping Center Zone -• zone, that spells out !he
purpose of the zoning and defines uses p<:rmi;sible witltin lbe district -will1e the
relationship ofancbor tenants 10 .. !ellile uses ","C·uld be governed by the companion
master plan. A. currently envisioned, lbe combined products could conceivably
efunln.t\e tile traditional neighborhood co;nmerci.1 caps on ~ses. b <>!her words.
if an adopted plan ultimately .hows, for example. Inc1wc len.nl(s) comprising
35,000 -40,000 square feet witJ-.ia lbe Midtown Core Area, and an additional
25,000 -30,000 square feet of satellite shops, those relationsbip would be part of
the plan IIJlIlf"O\'3I process unless modified in • future public review process. III this
w.y, the relationship of anchor and sateliile tenants can be tailored Ie fit the
particblar neighboriJood center, and the need for individual property FAR! and use
•
;,. ..
-~ --_.,
o o
""PI would be ollnimi7.ed or p!'rhaps 00 longer neC'ssary al all. SubsequenllO the
cooooptuaI plan odop!ion. building elevatioos and minor changes could be achieved
via !be ARB approval ~,.. Pbysica! parameters of the zone, such as sethacb,
circulatioo and parking, would be dictated by the accompanying master plan.
[a support of !be property owners' master site planning efforts, should tliey opt \0
pro.."eed in thai mllMC>', .uUf recommends retaining a qualified retail financial
ronsultanllO participate in !he conceptual planning effort; and 10 prepare a pro
forma analysis ct!be mlevoJopmenl optioos. A pro-fonna analysis will provide the
commercial property Ownen with a financial posiWn analysis based on individual
(iWIler'. cooditioo(s) and desired course ctaction. 10 the case ct Midtown, owners
will be able 10 lSSeSS !he financial implicatioos of building rehabilitotion, private
property redevelopment, or in"estmenl in Midtown cenler red!:veloprnent efforts.
¥"..eyser-Marston has beeD successful in this rote in several other communities and
cooId provide the rewllink 10 the private seclot site planning efforts.
AID:BNlJIYFS
Tbe marIreI analysis coosuItan!. Keyser Marslon Associa!es, identified four alternatives 10
be considered in addressing how the Midlown Shopping Cenler might be revitalized. fa
aMitioo 10 wbat !he staff proposes 10 Council (steps i and 2 above), there are the
following options:
I. Slab!S QN OpIion -'The Cily bas the option of continuing "'ith historkal trend. ct
deli.nlng tile City's role via land use planning, while allowing private sector mane!
forces 10 'take over' an other marleet ronsideratioos without further City
participation. Eveniually market forces. can be antkipated to lnlervene. given that
!be Keyser Marston study has identified a sUb;;lantiaJ los, i. sales in the area due
\0 current conditions witllin tlJe Midlow. Shopping Cenler, and fr.at economic
decline ultimately leads Ie private de-.. eloper intervention ""bere stTong retaIl mar1:et
support exists. In lite interim, however, MidtoWQ willlike!y experience continue.d
high vacancies and possible loss of additional smaTl businesses.
2. Cit)' Forrnatjon of I 800eyewtUnI AgeDQ' in MkhGII'Q -An option recommended
by the consultant 10 accompJisb redevelopment in M>dtuwn is tbe formatioo of a
Redeve10pment Agency under California Stale law. A multitude of California
p ... u.n,
I I •
cllles have availed themselves of State Redevelopment Law 10 accomplish
erooomio goals in <Ii.lressed are .. such as Midtown, Criteria foe Redevelopment
Agency formarion witi>jD commercial oreas include inadequate parldng,
00s0Iescence of structures, multiple property ""''''''''';1', poor vebicular circulation,
cle. While the enabling legislati ve ~qu;rem,,"ts bave become more and more
stdngent, M"ldtowD Shepp;", Center exhibits a number of the 'lualif}ing
requirements for formal redevelopment,
The downsides \0 Redevelopment Agency formation 10 accomplish physical
J'OCOOSIrUCtion in MidlOwR ore numerous. Forming. Redevelopment Agency can
be alengtl;y and controversial process, More impoctan(jy, Redevelopment Agency
formation.. ia starr. opinion. should be pursued oru:r where no other allernatives
exis!. In the case ofM><ltowA, .... ~av. the benefi,ts ofhi"b discretionary inr-"'De,
demonstraled unmet market needs, and interesled capital investocs.
nsc,u.1MPACT
The fiscal impact of the next step.; that the Ci~f decides 10 ilfldertake is initially dependent
upon the strategy pursued by Ibe private property (' .... '1Iers. U!be property owners proceed
wid! 1bc site planning exercise as discussed in !ltis report, staff reoommends lbe retention of
alraffic engineering <:oosultant 10 conduci the traffIC study; and 10 contr&Ct with a qualified
reIlIil and 1inanciaI planning coosubanIlO conduct a pro-forma analysis and 10 provide reIBil
input to !he pr<lCeS5. 1be Phase U zoning ordin"oce changes, illdud;ng the possible creation
of. new neighborhood commercial shopping cenler zone, could involve substantial staff time
ItId possible <:oosu1tan! "s'slan« in It,. prel'aratioll ordin.nce preparation and comparuon
environmen!31 assessment, and will be addressed in • subsequent CMR 10 City Cou..'lCil. II
is anticipated that the prelimin'"Y traffIC anaJ)'sis required fix Phase I w'J] cost $15,000,
proWled 1tat ;be staff will present !he findings or.e po&)' implications 0{ the study at Boards
and Commissions meetings.
This method is a departure from Ibe traditional use of techn.'<:al C<lnsultants for the city's
InIDSpOrIation di\ision, where time and atlendance at meetings is • substantial component
oC!he consultants' costs, and the findings oflbe study are presenled throughout lbe hearing
process b}'!he coosu1'llmts. As with the Midtown M",1;ot Anal),,;S, however, this maJ'.oe[ of
consultant use un result in significant cost sa\ing' 10 !I.e City and can focus lbe use of
«>OSIlI1ants on !he lechnical aspects 0{ the study. Cor.sultanl costs (or the pro-forma analysis
an: estimated 10 be $7,500.
o
STEPS ror J OWING ApfRQV AI,
Illbo~ """""" ore su=ssful in their efforts 10 pri"ately fund a conceptual masler
plan for !be MidIOWR core area, the City should retain a consultant to cocduc'i • traffic
tlUdy 10 dcleJ1nine the proper loca60n oi. signalized entry inlo the commercia! «nler
(should oocbe necessary) and !O evaluate the effectS oil two-lane v~rsus four-I.""
~lield Rood configura60n, and I consultant !o perf<>rm Ill. pro-focma analysis for
!be rore area. DepeOOing 00 the recommenda60n{s) adopted by City Cou .... ;] at this time,
stoff will reIUTD with I budget amendment ordinance (BAO) 10 carry oot the above steps.
Pbase n «the P""'X"', whicb could LochJde City prepara60n of zoning ordinance changes.
;"eluding the po<sible ereo60n oi. new Deign borhood commerc ial shopping cenler zone,
will be oddressd iu • subsequent CMR
AD'ACHMENJ'SiEXHJBITS
EJhlbit A Existing FAR'. and those permissible within the MidI""''' core &rea under
alrrent ordinance prQvisions.
EUt1>it B Sales Tax from Midtown oro<! comparative neighbo<bood shopping centers.
~ C 1988 Staff Report addressing rebuilding of n",,-comp/ying structures in the
downtow:l """ea.
E;dribit 0 Map «property ownership patlems within Midt()"'. Core Area.
cc: MidtowD Market Analysis Sub<;ommitlee
M'Jdlown Residents Association
Midtowa. commercial pt'operty ownersla,gents
r .... 17 0117
'-\.
•
•
".,
" .,j
\\ ,
,
\ , ,
" •
~ \
•
... , •. r
'.""
,
! ,I
I
I i
1
I
It ... lbllA
PIoor A ..... RoI .... lo Mld( .... n C .... A ....
_,~!t-'---Cwl'm\t Sq, JlI. Permilllible
..YtreetAdd .... ~~N~, Ooilu~t(.) Buill l.MO_tAA @O~LA.I'-_
2605 Middlcdield 127-J3.()04Co-opMori<oI 1i,064 47,945 0,25 19,1711
2615 Middlefield 127·33-003DukinRobbi.. 5,600 17,993 0,31 7,191
265S Middlefield 127·33.Q02Photrna.:y 6,800 8,622 0,'/9 3,449
269S Mio.1dlefiold 12?3M62VictoriaEmmonaetc, 7,114 lMI9 0.47 6,168
2701 Middlefield 127·34.Q)4MidtoWl'l Market 15,706 29,374 M3 11,750
2717 Middlefield 127.34.Q33BUe'Y oIC. 2,520 ',909 0,28 3,564
(Il",741 Middlefield Il7.34.Q)lB"'i1'W""t 14,43S 9,092 I.S9 3,637
~7SS Middlofiold 127.34.I02MidtowIlRoaltyotc, 2,71' 8,7'6 OJI 3,502
711 Colotado 127·34.I06BlY At .. ActiQn 7,555 7,130 1.06 2,.52
721 Colotado 127.24.Q91 Formetly Wen. Fargo 7,315 6,555 1,12 2,622
Subtotal 81,894 159~wr--o",67 63,918
CD . ' ',' ',' '
"
.,-.,: , ,,..
" >"
" il. ",
<) . \ , ..,
,._ •• ,f. ,
-/' "":'."1"
!
" ' ,-;)
.-
,I
"" . .-"
.,'\
" ; ,;' ?i
\
. '_.,.
~
TMU!t
_e."TYAlWl~&OUT<JtI.
_~N!I.'IIVI! HentHlIflfIHOf» "'01'/';';0 O!!NTI1}I$
... _arrOPMID'I'OWH OHOI'I'fNO 0_'"
PA~O "~TO, C)A
IIXHlllt'l' II
,:/; ,,/~~~~f;t;::';:'::_:~;~1.tt:~;~%t~AH:/t~~~,;Z;;~:·~t::,:1Ji¢/--' --\;'~-;,>i'};2;~;k ,i_';0~;., {-!',,' .t. ;-'~'; i;\~:t P,:.,;. ·.>l",":,;\'~f'-' ,:1,,;' J~, -<',~ s·, ,"~
6811111':1'110 010"0' MAo/OIl
",,::\,, TAXAIII.I!
\:;jI ~
i ~',t~t;\~s«;j~<~y;;; -./:1.:' (~~~~~,t;';~~;li;~{ ';@i'-~"-;~}~_-:{~1'i;;--~': ~;",>_~-~~-,
I;HA"1J<4T()f; oer!l!I\ __
lifJQewooo ... I) ......... O.NY ...
AUM-wA
,,It>'Tl'IWN QiN1tl'1 1»
r:,'\ .""-V 01'~EP\ .... €TtW...<lVf .. "'tn~
".0(10
"'000
87,000 ...... ......
---.~~-~¥~~, ... -~~.~-~~~--~-,
_"AT~D 68TMAT® 6BTMlAr£O
1", tlO,l tin
YA)f,ABLIl' 'J'OTAL 8"",&e PI!"
II!IA1..E8 ""\.118 tiO f'f"
<'/ :~~~~1;"
t3,0711,0Q0
t3, tJO',.OOO
'12,481,400
S8,684,t~
~fMo'GOO
-,;
'"' '''''1lQI)
..... 000
$71427,(JO(j.
foH,481,OOO
ti1,t47,W»
U).tM:O,ODO
"&1
....
....
.... ..,. ....
--~~~-~-~"~1"2·---~~----~-~--681'. , ...
l,\lWll&
.... 6.
'OJ, ....
~&1.000
...........
11a._&,l!OO
11.£tIIJ,700
U.3Oe,.~
(:,'
SM. ... ~
TOTAl..
...... 16
" '\-"," ....
lts,eM,OOO
..t1.l~,(tOQ
.,ou,,,,",&rJQ
f1~1".()(.l(l
fiI,tWJ,iWO
-. ... ,
WAl.E3PEft
WI'!'
""
....
... 1
.. 10
am
'1ta
,-"'if,'4;1"");;"»"'/~~~},O", 'Wi:\'i~-<};$JW,.:,~>~'~~f< _' :i -;;:'~.;:~j'~\;,>""'; .;,.', _ ., -'ii; "'-" -, ',', ""
ttl ~"'~""""1l9ll".'ng __ .. EJiDIud ........ "" In.tlfUUo-l'ItII.md .... ~ 't~~~'M~~~~i ~~~a\ .,....m~
"-:1 tt.lIt~1!IIII1 ... ~ ytd_, Wto'Mt "'hWfMQ~ -JlA' .. Beauty, ~""iA ~VIIht.aftt Prvt'"-MldtD.., I"teb, Murp'l1(. "'''' 0.,,:'4 o..wam.rt, 8,..'. Au. a ....
'Owi*V' .... It ........ , ...... ~ r .. "' ...... r-if, "''''~ktVlllt. •• 6_w'IIY.
&1)l.,IIIIMf t;fN ~"AV> ",,1'0
~ e.'r ~£'I'I.B'.fAAfW,Y¢t'4 "K-OC¥o.'f1.8, fl.Q.
It .. QM ....
',; .-
_ ~l ,
.-.. :, ....
..
,:-,
j •
I
I
I
""rc~ 10. 1988
HONORABlE UTl COIJllCll
Pil~ Alt.~ (aliforB'.
(OHMERCIAl OOWNTOWN CD DISTRICT
NONCOMP1.fl~G fACILITY FEGUlATlONS: INTERPRETATiON
Members ef the (ou~~il:
.' ,-.
T~~~ repGrt is for i~tor~~t;onal purposes and no Cit, Council action is
necessar1 or r!commende6.
Vhen tbe (o~er'ial Downtown (CD) District lonins regulations were apprcv~ at
t~e concTosion of the Downtown Study In J.l, 1986. tn. substantial I, reduc.d
floor irei ratiD (fAR, pr~visions re$~ltEd i& i number sf Downtown buildiDg$
becoming noncompl1ing by virtue of their e~ceeding the new FAR limits. The
fARs weTe reduced from 3.0 to J, to 1.0 tQ J 11 (O-C zoned areas and from 2.0
to I. to 0.4 to J ID most CO-S and (0-8 zoned ireiS. The objectives of tnese
~~ CO fAR prov1stons ~re to 1) red~ce development potent;ll and 2} reduce
ir.creases in triffic congestion and iocreases f~ the ~ff-street ~arking
deffcit. Tbe objectives of t~ese Downtown CO regulations ~ere not inte~ded to
trigger de!'l101itfol'l of existing bulldir.gs eVEr time.
As I rUQ1tJ tt.e (0 Noncornpl,ing Facilit1 provisions pen:litted existing
bu1Td~r.gs that had become noncompl,rng to be able tl be remo6eled, lmp~o~2d or
replate1 [see attathed Section 1~.49.04C(t)]. Ncr.etheless. these provlsTons
stil'lllited Uut iny incruse in size reSf:llt1l'!g froll remodeling or reb'Jlldirlg
mlJst qtJalify f<;r Olle cf the CO-District upansion exemptions. that 'Were
specific.1ly identified [see .tt.c~ed Section 18.49.060(b) of the Zonio9
Regu1itfons] :
1. ~andfcapped improvements;
2. Sels.r;lc rehabilitition;
3. Historic rest~rit;Onj
: r~o-llu!ldred (ZOO} sQ.uare-foot exemptions for buildings r,ot
qllal i fying for either the s.eisDI;' or bistoric exempt ions; and
~. Resiaential deve10prneRt fa tne CO-S and (O-N sub-districts.
Offi:l:: :8
-,
'. .
;'_T
.:-:;; . ",
-"
.--..
.... -
St.ff rop"ts .nd Pl.nnlng Commission and Citl [o"ncll minute. on the fin.'
phas.s to t~. Oownto~ Stu~1 reveal little public 61,c""I •• on the d.tail~ of
the noncomplying facilities of the proy\slon_ Sen.r.lly, 'lannlng Coromlss,on
and Cltl C.u~11 actions, I •• pprovlr~ tbls provision. acknowledged that it
l110wed and encouraged ~.nl •• ls\lng b.il~ings to re~odel and replace i.
situatfons where it was appropriate for t~e~ to do SG. There was no
4isc.ssioo of the design implic.tlon .f t~ls (0 District ~on<omplling rac;l;t,
proylsioo_ PrIor t. the or.ftlog of the CO District regulations, staff
!.t.rpr.t.~ the concept of t,is proYlsion by stating that such. prOylslon
~~l4 permit the remodeling and replacement cf noncomplyiDg buildings,
proYf~~ t~e present 'Ize and <onflguratlon did not <hange_ {See .tt.c~.d
e~cerpts: I} report to the Planning Commf~slon on Downtown Study EIR and
Drdi~.nc.s of february 1, 1985, pag. 15; and 2) CMR:132:6, Downtown Study,,_
ef April 3, 1~6, page 34, i
Recently, several preliminar1 proposa1s have been submitted to staff for
repl.cing or remodeling nv~compTJiDg buildings iR the CO District. These
proposals would re~ijlt ig substantial recenffguritlon cf existing buildi~g~
but th!J wDuld not res~lt i~ increased floor area. GenerillJ, the proposals
... 01.1115 r-eslIlt hlTmprowt'd c'!sign over the exiltir.g f)(,Jildings tly provfdlog liare
attrlctiYe facades and by creating interesting d!ifgn feature$~ e.g .• new
courtY1r~s or ~~cade ir~.s~
!NTERPRETATION Of C~ DISTRICT NONCOMPLYING FACiliTY PEO~ISIONS
{fi resp~r.se to tc~u1rres frD~ prop!rty owners, designers and aeveTGpers is to
~hetneT suc~_remodel1ng and repTacement of existing nonc~tyfn9 buildings ;Q
tne (D District WOQ1~ be persitted. staff suggests the fellowing
faterpretatioD Df t~e en District Nonc~pl,tng Facilit, pro~1sions.
~fs iltp.rpretallon of the CD No~complyins previsions would re~alft fc effect
oDl)'until tbe (fty ~as an opportunity to Ict on proposed UYban Oes;g~
Gaide'i~es for ~oncompl1iDg bufldlcgs t~at ~oQld be sU~ltted by the nfwl,
appofnte1 U~ban Design Cammittee.
1-CD District ~oncompl1lng Buildiog.
Where ~me [listing f100r Area Sll~w Grade is Eliminated
suc~ bui1dings ~ould be permitte~ to remod~l lnd replac~ ~rc~id~d
there ~oQld be 00 iocre;se is t~e building's noncompliance, e.g .• i~
noor ir~a Dr "eigflt~ [Re;J1 acements cOlJlci restllt it! sll'rfts in flc·or
arei. e.s., t~rough elimination of basements and the addition of
«iezza~lnes" pro'ol'ltied that suc;" char,ges campl fed .. Hh. ill bu11dir.g
c~es.1 However. i_ remodeling or fQ replacing suc~ bUl1di~gs, the]
would flot be permitted t~ <hange their present size Q~
configlJl"'iltion. RemodeHog ~f builrHngs on t~e ~istQric Building
[cventorl ~ould' hi ... ·e to cot'ltinue to compl.7 vitti tne previsions elf
the ~tstcrfc Pre$er~~tion Ordinance and ~ith Compr~nenslve Plan
policies regdrding tne remodeliog ef historic bu;1dings~
TIIB hterpretiltfon is COriS istent 'Wit~ thE! !taf( reports (HE'd aDlJ'/e
and ~th a prevlous interpretltion ~ade b1 the (~)ef BU11dinq
Officill (or the remodeling Qf i do~to~n b~ilding.
3/j~/88
-2-
'"' ,"
. . . .:;,.~
/'_. ~-' ... :-"."
" -~~""
• l. co Ol.trlet None~ply!n9 Buildings
Wher. Existing Floor Are. At Dr !lbov. Erade h EI!~i •• ted
SUt' buildings would be penoltted to be remodeled .nd repiaced
provieed t~ere would be no ir.creiS! i~ t~e bu'ldiog~$ noncompliin'~9
t.g., is f]oo~ area or fa bef9~t. However. iD remodel;og ~r f~
r.placle9, such buildings vould be penlltted t. be recoGfigured f.
terms Qf le"9th. w~dt~ and ~ei9ht so lCfi9 as existing flQcr lrei was
"ot ~nc~tiSed (except for th~ Ircrementfo~ed existing exceptiD~5 ;~
the CD regul.li,ns). A1s., i. no event would. buildiog's height be
.11.",d to .xceed the h.ight limit (50 fe.t except .5 fe.t wit~io
ISO feet of • residenli.lly zoned district}. Remodeling of
bull.'ogs on the Histori: SUildiog rov.ntor, vould have t. contlnu,
ta compT, ~it~ t~e pr~vlsiDn5 of the ~istoric PreserYitfon Ordina~ce
and vith Comprehensi.e Plan policies regardiog the remod,ling .f
);storic buildings.
Thh c\lu1cf lI1ein .. for eXiimp~o:;', tbat i two-story, 10,000 sc;:uare-foot
bijilding could become i tl~ee-story. 10,000 square-foot huildirg
with i red~~~ bufFdin~ (ootprj~t. 50 l~ng is the height
rtstrictions of the applicab1e district were not e~ceeded. Sac~ in
iAterpretatioD not only allows greater design f1exibil)t, (subject
to Ar'~1tect~r,1 Revfev Board review and approval]) but co~1d also
perm,t provlsions for or.-site ~arking due to t~e reducec bU1J~ing
footpriot.
Stiff~is~ES t~ poiat out t~3t the Cit1 Attorne! and C~ief S~11ding Official
lIa'lle re ... ·iellled" tiles!! hUrprehtl.o.r1s ind 'have found the!l consfstent witTI the
te~t Dr the tD Dfstrlct Nonco~~1'1ng FiC11it, ~roYisions.
£FFfCTSOf CD OlST.leT ~OHCOMPlYING fACILITY JNTtRP~£tATION
Staff believes t~at t~e$e lRterpretitions shall:
I. Rot result f! jecreased ncncompllance fa te~5 af floor ar~a or
~ei~~t fer buildings ia tne CD District currentl} exceioing t~e FAR
ar,d/or the 1I1o!1;trt Hmas; and yet
2. Permit reasonable flexibility for buildings tJndergcing re::tIooe1ing
an~or repTacpment so that impro~ed ~uilding design, thGt the City
ftas id'erit1fied over time as contributing to the en'hancelfiEnt of
Downtown Pala Alt~, will be en(curaged.
rer; add; tfePl, another effec.t of thEse ioterpretatio.1s of the CD Noncompl}i"ng
pt"Qv1s.jlJns sholJld pf"'.ec.1ude unexpected' b",l1ding Ilassiog 1ft remodetir'lgs that
could r~sult if e~tife baseme~ts ~ere replaced by uppef·story additions.
rUTU~ E ~n IONS
Stiff j+. reqtJf!st1r,g that the (Jrb~n Design Committee develop desfgn 9uidelines.
(Ii.,. t~t' r~mo1eli~ and replacem€nt cf Mnccmplyfng bulldings is t11e CD
Distr~(t. Completion cf the Urbin Deslgn Committee"s work is E~pected l'
earl] :'" .. e9.
Tbe afc.re-mentiont!if fAte,..pretatf~ns of CO District Nonco;nplying facnitl
jlfOf'fs;',flS will apply until the City has the opportun:itl to act en the Urban
.< •
';-"
,:-~,~ -:
3/1~/sa
.].
" ",
..... /.
~. .. ".:~/;.
Gosign Committee's r.c~end.tfons for design guideline. on CO Ol.trfct
Doncoopl,ID! boildings.
II .<ldjtlo~. st.ff ,,111 continue to Include. surrmarl of ~.jor building
remodelIng. !. subsequent CO ~i'trlct monitoring reports.
Respe,tf.111 submitted,
AI-,i" !>~/~
GEORGE Wtl!:RIW(
~,st.nt 'l~ng Offici.,
E FlU!ING L
As ist.nt Cit; Ra:~~
tHwudRjI~~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Of Toe tOT of Pl.nn!n9 and
Community £~v)ronment
Attac~ment.: Section 18.H.040(c} of the CD Comercla} Downtown lonir,g
Regulat;orlS
Section IS.4~.G60{bl of t~e CO Cemmert,.l Ocwntown Zoo;ng
Regul.tfons
[.{erpt of Report to the Planning Commi.s!on of 2/]/86, page 15
(xcerpt gf CMR:232:6 t. the Citl Council of 4/3/86, page 34
cc: 'JanniDg (ommlssfon
Arc'itaGt~ril Rey;~ BfilrG
Histortc R~sources Board
~rban Oeslg. Committ ••
Ocwotown Property ~ers
C~~~ber ~f Commerce
.Down t own Worth As soc; at f on
Unfv!rsfty Park Association
ChIef 8uildi"g ilrf;cl.!
Zoning ~jDfstritor
~.MR: ISS:S 3/lo/sa
-t·
''-'.''.
, ,
~ ,
--..
. 3;~~1l~?L!t:~c~ __ _
. -~-
~-...
.~ ,
\
, '. r;-,
•
\ .
\ ,
\
\: , . ,
\.
• I
•
I
I
I