Loading...
101-Draft Minutes 3-26-2013.pdfCITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. March 26, 2013 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2013 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Don Sun. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Don Sun Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Assistant Planner: George Schroeder City Attorney: Melissa Tronquet APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the February 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Gong, and carried 5-0-0 to approve the February 12, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Conrad Minshall, Cupertino resident: • Addressed the Commission regarding a proposed McDonalds restaurant with a drive thru at the Bollinger/Miller intersection. • The property is physically in San Jose; the San Jose Planning Commission has denied it and it is being appealed to SJ City Council on April 16th. Although the project is in San Jose, he has collected over 700 signatures on a petition from Cupertino residents who are concerned about their property values and the safety factor relative to the Hyde Jr. High School students crossing the street. Residents are also concerned about the noise from the drive thru in the early morning and late evening hours. He said he was interested in contacting the appropriate people for advice on whether or not Cupertino may or may not chose to take a position other than remaining neutral on the project. Cupertino Planning Commission March 26, 2013 2 Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development: • Said staff has sent a letter to the San Jose Planning Department; they have commented on the project and have concerns about the circulation. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. U-2013-01 Use Permit request to allow a new coffee shop (Philz Jacob Jaber (Byer Coffee) to open at 5:30 a.m. Planning Commission Properties) decision final unless appealed. 20686 Stevens Creek Blvd. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a use permit to request the Philz Coffee shop opening time be 5:30 a.m. He reviewed the existing center and surroundings, operational details and proximity to residential area. • In order to approve the application for a conditional use permit, the Commission must make the findings that the proposed development or use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property, or improvements in the vicinity will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The early morning hours will not negatively impact the existing levels of service. The request is categorically exempt from CEQA, because it relates to hours of operation only and involves negligible or not expansion of the approved use. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project based on the draft resolution. Commission decision is final. Applicant: • Said they were grateful for the opportunity to open in Cupertino. Chair Sun opened the public hearing; as there was no one present who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Com. Lee: • Said she was pleased to have Philz Coffee in Cupertino; approved the plans and felt that the earlier opening hours were satisfactory. Com. Takahashi: • Said he supported the project. Com. Gong: • Said she welcomed Philz Coffee to Cupertino. Com. Brophy: • Agreed with colleagues Chair Sun: • Said the early morning hours would not have a negative impact on the proximity to the neighborhood. Motion: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Use Permit U-2013-01 per the model resolutions. Cupertino Planning Commission March 26, 2013 3 3. Ron Tate (Tate Development) Study Session for a potential application to demolish Mike Amidi (Foothill Auto an abandoned service station and construct six single- Service & Detail, Inc.) family residences with five live-work units. Project will Location: 10121 No. Foothill Blvd require rezoning the property from P(CG), Planned General Commercial to P(CG,Res), Planned General Commercial and Residential and a Tentative Map Application to subdivide the parcel. Other associated permits that will be required include a Development Permit, Architectural and Site approval and a Tree Removal Permit. Tentative City Council date: 5-7-2013 Aarti Shrivastava: • Explained that the purpose of the study session was to get comments from the Planning Commission so that the applicant can go back and decide whether or not they want to amend the application based on comments received. The Commission will not render a decision or provide specific direction; it is merely discussion at this point. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner: • Reviewed the proposal for a live-work unit at the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Silver Oak Way at 10121 No. Foothill Blvd. Applicant has requested a study session to receive input from the Planning Commission on the feasibility of the project. • The applicant proposes to rezone a .87 gross acre parcel from P(CG) to P(CG, res); demolish an abandoned service station and construct 6 residential units including 5 live-work units, along with associated site improvements. If the applicant decides to submit an application following the study session, several development permits would be required including rezoning to allow for residential; a tentative map application to subdivide the parcel for ownership units; a development permit to allow 6 units and architectural and site approval and tree removal permits, all subject to environmental review per CEQA. • He reviewed the video presentation, including the existing site plan, proposed site plan, neighborhood compatibility, parking. The neighborhood is primarily residential with a mix of housing types; and is not located within an established commercial district. The proposed density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre is comparable and in many cases is less dense than some of the surrounding residential uses in the neighborhood; the height of the residences is about the same as the adjoining properties and the project was designed by the applicant to respect existing neighborhood scale, mass and bulk. The city’s parking ordinance does not specifically have a standard for parking ratio for live-work developments, so a special parking analysis will be required. The city does have a standard for small lot single family townhouses which is 2.8 spaces per unit; based on the 2.8 ratio, the project will be required to provide 17 stalls. The project is proposing 23 parking stalls, for a ratio of 3.8 stalls per unit, plus 4 to 5 onstreet stalls available for public parking on Silver Oak which won’t count toward the project’s required parking. Each residence includes a two car garage and either one or two uncovered guest parking stalls. The city’s transportation consultant commented that the proposed supply should be proficient but will conduct a full parking study to confirm. Courtesy notices were sent out by the city for the study session to property owners within 300 feet of the project site; the applicant also held a voluntary neighborhood meeting last month. A summary of the comments from the meeting are contained in the staff report, page 35. Next steps include the PC reviewing the conceptual proposal from the applicant; provide comments; subsequent City Council study session is scheduled for May 7th and the Commission will also review the application again if the applicant decides to formally submit an application. Cupertino Planning Commission March 26, 2013 4 • He reviewed the proposal concepts, land use and zoning, mixed use options, as outlined in the staff report. In order to introduce residential uses to the site, the property must be rezoned to PD with CG and residential uses. The new commercial project may be desirable to serve the area and provide the city with potential sales tax revenue; however, the project site is further away from the commercial intersection at Stevens Creek and Foothill and is separated from the commercial uses by a residential development. The proposed format is also consistent with a General Plan policy that discourages exclusive general commercial uses and encourages a neighborhood commercial presence on the street with storefronts and residential uses. • He reviewed guidelines for the study session: The Planning Commission cannot take any action, make a decision or provide direction since a formal development application has not yet been submitted; they can provide comments and feedback on the proposal including comments on whether a live-work project is preferable in this location. Staff answered questions on the proposed live-work units project. Chair Sun: • Expressed concern about the proposal to rezone from residential to commercial and questioned what standards would apply when making the decision. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said considerations include what the fiscal impact would be; which could be provided when the application comes back with the formal staff report. Also the issue of how appropriate it is for its current zoning and does it make sense to rezone it. Some discussion has taken place; it is a short distance from the Crossroads. Staff wants to maintain as many of the small commercial nodes as possible because they do provide some needed services for the residential developments around it. It seemed far removed and separated by another residential area, hence it is difficult for it to be successful. Those discussions will be brought to the Commission’s attention when the project is brought forward; in addition to any environmental impacts and what the project will do. • In order to keep it from resembling the Astoria where it is purely residential, she said the design of the units makes it more attractive to use as an office than as a bedroom, and it has better frontage on Foothill; when there are homes fronting Foothill, they tend not to want to be right on Foothill; it’s a good transition. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said in addition to Ms. Shrivastava’s comments on the appropriateness of the zoning consideration, one thing to look at is consistency with the General Plan as well. In this particular case the General Plan has a land use zoning already allocated for commercial and residential; essentially the action of considering adding a layer of residential, in this case, mixed use, would be consistent with the General Plan. The blueprint of the city is already stating the fact that it’s being encouraged to consider these types of uses in addition to all the other factors being considered such as compatibility, design and appropriateness. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the purpose of the study session was to get a sense of where the Planning Commission and City Council were on rezoning. If it was a typical application with 6 units, a study session would not be warranted. The applicant wanted to get input before moving forward on actual studies on the project. Melissa Tronquet, Assistant City Attorney: • Clarified that comments made will not bind the Planning Commission or City Council to anything; it Cupertino Planning Commission March 26, 2013 5 is merely an opportunity to get feedback. Com. Takahashi: • He asked if from the standpoint of rezoning, was it deemed a compromise and easier to rezone to the mixed use vs. 100% residential based on earlier comments. Aarti Shrivastava: • To some extent staff looks at the appropriateness of the site and how might it is designed so that the design suits the location. Looking at Foothill, it was felt that it would be better to have a slightly different use or transition to the homes because most homes don’t want to be right on Foothill. Ronald Tate, Applicant: • Provided a background of the site which was previously a service station and said the proposed low density design is compatible with the neighborhood. At the neighborhood meeting there was positive feedback from people who thought it would be a good transition to the neighborhood. The previous gas station was successful for many years until Highway 85 opened and when the traffic was diverted they tried to keep it operational but closed it after 5 years. • Said the proposed project is compatible for the neighborhood with a commercial overtone. The proposed development would have strict rules and regulations that people cannot have employees in their space; a very extensive green landscaping program would be developed, retaining the stormwater on site with the HOA maintaining it. The landscape plan would be approved by the Commission and City Council. • Said that at the public meeting only one speaker felt the project was too dense. He noted that in the beginning, they made certain that the density was compatible or lower than most densities in the area. All others were grateful they were proposing a low density residential development for the project. • Said he had no direct experience with live-work units, but has built over 5,000 homes in over 53 years. He added that he had interviewed 7 different architects experienced in building small developments on tight sites. • Said that although he did not have alternative designs with more options, before he began the design process, he had several meetings with the Planning staff, and has invested thousands of dollars on reports and studies. He said his first choice would be to build single family detached with no work area; but they wanted a blend so they came up with a commercial trend overlay which they felt the city would consider. • Signage would be minimal, unobtrusive and small. Each one of the homes will be on its own individual lot; there will be a HOA to set up the rules. Chair Sun opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada homeowner: • Said she was interested to see what types of new uses are being considered for Cupertino parcels and she was pleased to see it being approached from a study session since the work-live units are new to Cupertino. • She said it was an interesting concept and the people who live around that area are the ones who need to determine whether it will fit into their area as it is a very busy street. There are safety factors to consider, quarry trucks travel up and down the streets; and there is a senior facility across the street. Whatever use is chosen to fit into that area must consider the safety of the pedestrians and residents. • She inquired about the yard setup, whether there is a private area for each of the families, how much land for young children to play, HOA fees for units; will they be condos or townhomes. Chair Sun closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission March 26, 2013 6 Aarti Shrivastava answered Commissioners’ questions: • In order to prevent someone other than the owner of the work-live unit conducting business in the work unit; the owner would be bound to a condition of approval or an ordinance they would have to comply with; the CC&Rs of their HOA would be reviewed to ensure they were incorporated. She noted that HOAs are very good at policing the compliance. The owner has to follow the same procedures as those who have home occupations. It is not anticipated that it will take any more staff time than a home based office would. • Relative to speaker Jennifer Griffin’s concern about the owner not using the front unit for a work space, she said they have approvals for six homes and cannot convert it into a second unit. • Said there would be restrictions on what kind of uses go in the work-live unit; there will be a home based occupation ordinance that restricts what you can and cannot do; and staff also plans to review the live-work standards for other cities that have developed these kinds of projects and the information will be provided as part of the application. • Said they could design a sign program for the site. Ronald Tate, Applicant: • Said that the timeline of the project is approximately 9 months to completion, depending on weather. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said there will be an environmental review of the site; staff will verify with the agencies to make sure they received a clean bill of health as part of the environmental review. Com. Brophy: • Pointed out that if the parcel in question was not in the city limits today, and was being annexed; or if it was an undeveloped site, it would not be put as commercial zoning or put as commercial use on a land use plan. • Said he did not support any kind of rezoning of land from commercial to residential even when the cases have been overwhelming. In the subject project it is only about 9/10 of an acre site with no connection to any other commercial property that has no value as a commercial use. What is shown is an attempt to make believe that it is a commercial project by putting units in that no one would ever consider proposing in the first place. He said he didn’t feel it was relevant to a low to medium density street like Foothill Avenue with a single parcel under one acre. • Said he felt the concept is basically silly and appears to be a way for the owner to get around a property he cannot figure out how to develop under commercial zoning; to get some residential units in by putting in these units which will make believe they are commercial. The kind of uses being discussed are not neighborhood serving; people don’t go down the block to their local accountant or architect; and they are not uses that will generate any sales tax revenue. It will have to go forward to the City Council because they have been much more insistent upon not rezoning commercial land. • Said that the reality is they should be looking in to some type of exclusively residential use that fits in with the surrounding uses. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they considered that; it is challenging doing something along Foothill and it seems like a good transition, more as a transition then as providing any fiscal impacts. Staff does not feel the live-work units project will provide it. They aren’t addressing the sales tax argument with this development; there is a sales tax issue but the project doesn’t necessarily address it by providing a venue for sales tax. It is a better transition because most homes want walls along Foothill which are probably not the best thing to have and it seemed to be a good transition and there is a market out there that the developer felt he could tap. They felt it was a good format for buildings along Foothill. Cupertino Planning Commission March 26, 2013 7 Com. Brophy: • There are residential uses on the parcel to the north and they may not want to have residential lots that have ingress and egress directly onto Foothill. He said he felt it would be a profound mistake to force the odd concept in order to make believe that it is still a commercial development. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said Com. Brophy made a good point; and said they were not considering it commercial. Com. Lee: • Said it was an interesting concept but she felt a commercial use would better serve the neighborhood and community. She felt the work-live use would not be appropriate as the number of potential tenants would be small and limited to tax preparers, accountants or similar. The low density would appeal to the neighbors and would go thru easier than commercial. Presently it is an old vacant gas station with little activity in the last 5 years; if it is turned into commercial, it would be different for the neighbors, more than they are accustomed to with trucks, delivery, refuse, parking, etc. • She said she preferred commercial use for the parcel. Com. Takahashi: • Said from his perspective it was a compromise and given the situation associated with the location and past experience with regard to successful commercial endeavor there, he felt it was the best compromise from the standpoint of utilizing the available space. It is presently an eyesore, an unused gas station, and the proposed architecture does have some appeal. The reality is, if it were to remain commercial, it would take a long time to decide which would work best and there would be risk associated with that because of the high failure rate of a commercial endeavor. He said he would support the project. Com. Gong: • Said she agreed with Com. Takahashi that it was a good compromise, and agreed with staff that having a large wall on Foothill would not be attractive to people using the area going back and forth. She said she understood Com. Brophy’s concern that it is not truly a commercial entity; it does seem to be a residential option; but she was not sure how they could impose the restrictions for a work-live building. Making it an intentional option is a good compromise. Chair Sun: • Asked what standards would apply to the rezoning. • Said he visited the site which is in a quiet residential area, far from Stevens Creek and DeAnza City Center; and he questions what type of commercial use would best fit in that location. It appears that the applicant has tried hard to combine the commercial use and residential to maximize the land utility; it is a small piece of land they can try to convert from purely commercial to a combination for the future. • Said he was concerned about the legal consequences for the work-live environment; it is difficult to impose how the homeowner conducts business and if their business fails they may convert the work unit into a living room or children’s room. The City Council might consider how to implement the law to try and meet the expectations they have. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said if the applicant brings back the project they will address the Commissioners’ questions and concerns. Cupertino Planning Commission March 26, 2013 8 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting Mayor’s Monthly Meeting: • Chair Sun reported City Council projects being considered are General Plan Amendment, and Stevens Creek Trail. Economic Development Committee: No meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development: • Reported that upcoming projects for the Planning Commission included the General Plan Amendment and Tree Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the April 9, 2013 meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary