Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />feels that the following modifications would be acceptable to this site so as to blend with the <br />area: Buildings to have a setback of at least 15 ft. from the front property line; the <br />development shall include a minimum 10 ft. wide landscaped buffer area with a solid <br />fence/wall along the entire northwest side of the property; buildings limited to two-stories; <br />and in-lieu parking fees shall not be allowed due to the lack of available on-street parking in <br />the immediate vicinity of the site. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that the letter received from the law firm of Sturgeon, Keller, Phillips & <br />Gee, who are in opposition to staff's recommendation of rezoning, was distributed to the <br />Commission. Mr. Iserson responded to the points brought forward in the letter: <br /> <br />1. There is a vested economic interest in the parcel. <br /> <br />There is no on-going business on this site. <br /> <br />2. The site was a non-conforming use and the non-conforming uses should be <br />entitled to continue on into the future. <br /> <br />The site no longer has a non-conforming status. That status was lost once the business <br />ceased operations for over 90 days. <br /> <br />3. The applicants feel there is a "taking" because unreasonable interference with <br />the non-conforming use doctrine. <br /> <br />Under any rezoning scenario, there are a wide variety of uses permitted on this site, probably <br />more under the PUD-C-C zoning district than previously approved on this property. <br /> <br />Staff feels the PUD-C-C would be the most appropriate zoning for this parcel and <br />recommends approval by the Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright clarified that C-S/O and C-S plus Office are the basically same. He <br />also inquired if Conditions 7 and 8 of Exhibit A could be applicable if they were added to <br />Exhibit B. Staff concurred. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />William Sturgeon, 388 Market St., #670, San Francisco, represented INS. Mr. Sturgeon <br />stated that INS strongly opposes any change in the zoning of Ray Street. They feel the city <br />planners have operated as a taking entitling INS to just compensation. Mr. Sturgeon stated <br />that INS has complied with all requests of the City, has been a good citizen for the City, and <br />acted as a good neighbor to try and mitigate the neighbors' complaints. The speaker then <br />reviewed the background of INS on this property and the City's amortization procedure. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />FeblUlll)' 28. 1996 <br />