108-7 - March 26, 2013 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes.pdf
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: March 26, 2013
Application: Study Session for potential live-work development
Applicant: Ron Tate (Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc.)
Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070)
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Study Session to provide feedback on a conceptual proposal to demolish an abandoned
automobile service station and construct six (6) residential units, including five (5) live-work
units. If the project proponent files a formal application the project will require:
1. Rezoning the property from P(CG) – Planned General Commercial to P(CG, Res) – Planned
General Commercial and Residential;
2. Tentative Map application to subdivide the parcel for ownership units;
3. Development Permit;
4. Architectural and Site Approval;
5. Tree Removal Permit – to remove five (5) trees; and
6. Environmental Review
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the conceptual proposal from the
applicant and provide comments. The City Council will also provide comments at a subsequent
study session.
STUDY SESSION FORMAT:
The applicant has requested study sessions by the Planning Commission and City Council to
receive input on the feasibility of the proposal. The applicant has not submitted a formal
development application, so no action, decision, or direction may be provided.
The purview of the Commission at this meeting is solely to provide comments and feedback on
the concept presented at the study session. Staff suggests that the Commission focus any
comments on the major conceptual issues discussed in this report, including:
Whether the proposed residential/commercial use is desirable at this location or maintaining
the existing commercial use is preferable;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
If the proposed use is desirable, whether the proposed residential/commercial format and
density is compatible with the existing neighborhood; and
Specific issues or concerns related to the live/work use that the City may wish to consider
addressing or regulating.
If and when the applicant decides to formally submit an application, the project will be
processed in accordance with appropriate City procedures, which will likely include public
hearings by the Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council.
PROPOSAL DATA:
Existing land use Automobile service station
Proposed land use Single-family residential live-work project with 6 dwelling units
Existing/Proposed General
Plan designation
Commercial/Residential
Specific Plan None
Existing zoning designation P (CG)—Planned Development with General Commercial uses
Proposed zoning
designation
P (CG, Res) – Planned Development with General Commercial
and Residential uses
Gross lot area (includes up
to 30’ of street area)
38,019 square feet (0.87 acres)
Net lot area 28,837 square feet (0.66 acres)
Allowable maximum
residential density, if re-
zoning is approved
15 dwelling units (DU) per gross acre (AC) or 13 units based on
gross acreage of the site, per General Plan Policy 2-32
Proposed density 6.9 units per gross acre
Existing building area 1,608 square feet
Existing building height 18 feet (one story)
Proposed building area Residences with workspaces: 3,099 sq. ft. (including 435 sq. ft.
workspace)
Residence without workspace: 2,579 sq. ft.
Total gross building area: 18,074 sq. ft.
Allowed building height 30 feet
Proposed building height 25 feet, 5 inches (two stories)
Required parking Townhomes – 2.8 spaces/unit. Home occupations allow 1
employee and require 1 additional space) Standard for live-work
units to be determined through a parking study
Proposed parking Residences with workspaces: 2 enclosed, 2 uncovered
Residence without workspace: 2 enclosed, 1 uncovered
23 total onsite, with 4-5 additional on-street stalls on Silver
Oak Way
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
BACKGROUND:
Existing Site and Surroundings
The proposal site is located at the
southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard
and Silver Oak Way, and is
surrounded by higher density
residential (residential clusters and
duplexes) and quasi-public uses. To
the west of the site are residential
duplexes; to the east and across
Foothill Boulevard is the Sunnyview
Retirement Community; to the north
and across Silver Oak Way are
residential duplexes; and to the south
are residential duplexes.
The site currently contains an abandoned 1,608 square foot automobile service station with a
fueling canopy, which was previously occupied by Foothill Auto Service and Detail. The site
was originally developed in 1971, and has been historically used for automobile service, fueling,
and convenience purposes. The site topography slopes up towards the south and west side of
the property and slopes down from Silver Oak Way along the north side of the property.
DISCUSSION:
Proposal Concepts
The proposal concept consists the following:
Demolish the existing automobile service station
Construct six (6) detached, small-lot, single-family residences
Five (5) live-work units with detached workspaces are included within the six (6)
residences
Associated site improvements
(See Attachment 1 for the preliminary plan set).
The five (5) live-work units are proposed along the Foothill Boulevard frontage, and contain
detached workspaces, designed with a “commercial studio/storefront” appearance. One other
residential unit without a workspace is situated along the Silver Oak Way frontage to help
transition the project to the residential neighborhood to the north and west.
Live-work developments allow residents to operate small neighborhood-serving businesses in
or near the buildings they live, which may reduce commuter-traffic impacts, reduce or eliminate
Site Aerial
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
child care expenses for people with young families, and provides the opportunity to test
creative business ventures with greatly reduced startup costs. The intensity of the live-work
workspaces is expected to be similar to home occupation businesses (Chapter 19.120) with
additional allowance for neighborhood-serving commercial uses that can operate at a lower
intensity.
Land Use & Zoning
The project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial/Residential
with a specific zoning designation of P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial. The
current zoning designation allows any permitted general commercial or retail use as part of the
General Commercial Ordinance (Section 19.60) to operate on the site. In order to introduce
residential uses to the site, the property must be rezoned to Planned Development General
Commercial and Residential. This parcel is not identified as a potential housing site in the City’s
General Plan Housing Element. However, the City will be able to claim credit for units
provided on this site as part of our current Housing Element.
A new commercial project may be desirable to serve the area and provide the City with the
potential of sales tax revenue. Properties at key intersections in the City are zoned commercial
to provide essential commercial neighborhood-serving uses in proximity to neighboring
residential areas. Examples along Foothill Boulevard are at the intersections of McClellan Road
and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Keeping these provides essential neighborhood-serving
commercial/professional office uses for neighboring residential areas. The project site, however,
is further away from the intersection and Stevens Creek Boulevard and is separated from the
commercial uses by a residential development.
The Commission may want to comment on whether a live-work project (residential with limited
commercial uses) in this location is desirable to the extent that it may maintain the intent of
providing neighborhood-serving uses while serving as a transition to the residential area to the
west, or whether maintaining a more standard commercial use is preferable.
Mixed-Use Options
There are generally two types of commercial/residential mixed-use formats. A vertical mixed-
use format is where residential is stacked on top of commercial (e.g., Travigne and
Metropolitan) and a horizontal mixed-use format is where the residential is located behind the
commercial part of the project either attached or detached (e.g., the recently approved Biltmore
mixed-use project along Stevens Creek Boulevard). Typically the vertical mixed-use format is
appropriate in more urban areas, at or near intersections of major commercial thoroughfares,
allowing greater building and/or parking design efficiency over a smaller area. Vertical mixed-
use projects would typically appear more urban.
The applicant is proposing a horizontal live-work format with the workspaces in the front along
Foothill Boulevard and residential dwellings in the back. This format may create a better
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
transition on the site by providing a commercial frontage along Foothill Boulevard, while
providing a harmonious transition/buffer to the residential component of the project and the
residential areas to the south and west of the property. In addition, the proposed project format
is consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy 2-32 (Attachment 2) which discourages
exclusive general commercial uses and encourages developments that are not in an identified
commercial area (such as the proposal site) to include a neighborhood commercial presence
along the street with storefronts and residential uses. The Commission may want to provide
further feedback on this proposed commercial/residential format for this site.
Density
The proposed density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre is within the maximum 15 units per
gross acre allowed by General Plan Policy 2-32. The proposed density is also comparable and in
most cases, less dense than the neighborhood context on the west side of Foothill Boulevard and
north of Stevens Creek. The table below shows the density of several neighboring residential
developments:
Location Zoning Existing unit
count
Gross acreage Density
Westridge
Condos (between
Silver Oak Way
and California
Oak Way)
R1C-2.9 136 units 13.45 gross acres
9.62 net acres
14.1 DU/Net. Ac.
(density based on
net acreage in
R1C zone)
Silver Oak
Condos (between
Silver Oak Ln and
Stevens Creek Bl)
P (Res, CG) 24 units 3.25 acres 7.38 DU/Gr. Ac.
22527-22537
Silver Oak Way
R2-4.25 2 units 0.313 gross acres 6.38 DU/Gr. Ac.
22547-22557
Silver Oak Way
R2-4.25 2 units 0.242 gross acres 8.26 DU/Gr. Ac.
22556-22566
Silver Oak Way
R2-4.25 2 units 0.253 gross acres 7.9 DU/Gr. Ac.
22576-22586
Silver Oak Way
R2-4.25 2 units 0.254 gross acres 7.87 DU/Gr. Ac.
22596-22606
Silver Oak Way
P (R2) 2 units 0.196 gross acres 10.2 DU/Gr. Ac.
22616-22626
Silver Oak Way
P (R2) 2 units 0.251 gross acres 7.9 DU/Gr. Ac.
22636-22646
Silver Oak Way
P (R2) 2 units 0.316 gross acres 6.3 DU/Gr. Ac.
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
Live-Work Concept
The Municipal Code allows home occupations in residential zones under certain conditions and
subject to specific requirements. The Code does not, however, contain requirements for
developments designed specifically for live/work uses. The City would have the authority,
assuming the applicant pursues the proposal as a Planned Development application, to
establish specific standards and regulations for permitted and conditional uses. Copies of the
City’s home occupation standards (Attachment 3) and sample live/work regulations from other
cities (Attachment 4) are attached to this report, and the Commission may wish to provide
feedback on whether specific standards and regulations for the proposed live/work use may be
desirable.
The Astoria townhomes on Imperial Avenue between Lomita and Granada Avenue were
approved by the City in 2001 for 13 live-work units along the street frontage. The allowed uses
in the workspaces were neighborhood commercial uses such as personal services and
neighborhood offices. The approved parking ratio was 3.17 spaces per unit.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The applicant stated that the proposal will be designed to be compatible in scale, mass, and bulk
with the surrounding neighborhood. The exterior elevation exhibits (Attachment 1) show that
the proposed two-story height of the residences would generally be about the same height as
the surrounding one-story duplex residences since the building pad area is lower in elevation
than the duplex residences. General Plan Policy 2-32 allows one or two story buildings on this
site, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The proposed residences are designed in a modern architectural theme with redwood cladding
to mimic the natural features of the local foothills. The detached workspaces are designed in the
same theme of the residences with wide storefront bays and pedestrian entrances from the
street. The proposed siting and roof pitches of the residences minimize shading impacts to
adjoining residences. The City’s Consulting Architect will review the architectural details prior
to and during the formal review process if an application is submitted.
There are no required setbacks since this is a planned development zoned-property. The
proposal includes a 15-foot setback along the Foothill Boulevard property line; an 11.5-foot
setback along the Silver Oak Way (street side) property line; a 15-foot setback along the west
side property line; and a 10-foot setback along the south side property line. The proposed
setbacks generally appear to respect patterns in the existing area, but the Commission may wish
to provide further feedback on compatibility issues.
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
Public Improvements
The project proposes a detached sidewalk with landscaping buffer along the street frontages.
On-street parallel parking spaces are provided along the street frontage on Silver Oak Way,
which would be available for public parking.
Parking
The City’s Parking Ordinance does not specifically have a parking ratio for live-work
developments. The ratio of 2.8 spaces per unit (2 covered, 0.8 open) for “Small Lot Single-family,
Townhouse” developments was used as a baseline to determine the appropriate parking
intensity for the project. Based on this ratio, the project would be required to provide 17 stalls.
Each proposed residence includes a two-car garage. The five residences with workspaces also
include two uncovered spaces and the residence without a workspace includes one uncovered
space, for a total project supply of 23 parking spaces, or 3.8 spaces per unit. Based on initial
consultation with the City’s Transportation Consultant, the additional parking supply (at 1
space per each unit) should accommodate the limited parking demand for the workspaces due
to their lower intensity client/customer visits similar to that of home occupation businesses.
About four to five on-street parallel parking spaces will also be provided along Silver Oak Way.
The on-street parking spaces are not included in the proposal parking count.
A preliminary survey of parking demand for other existing live-work developments in Santa
Clara County will be provided to the Planning Commission at the study session to help inform
any additional comments the Commission may have related to parking.
If a formal application is submitted, the transportation consultant will prepare a traffic and
parking analysis for the project.
Tree Removals, Privacy Protection, and Landscaping
Existing trees onsite and offsite will likely be impacted by the proposed development and
require a tree removal permit application as part of the development applications if removal is
necessary.
The planting plan for the project will have to provide replacement trees for those removed and
privacy plantings to screen the views from new second floor windows onto neighboring
residential properties.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The study session is not considered a “project” per the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and is not subject to environmental review because no application has been submitted.
The purpose of the study session is to provide general feedback on the conceptual issues and
the comments provided at the study session do not commit the City to any particular course of
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
action if and when an application is submitted. Environmental review per CEQA will be
required if the developer decides to formally submit a development application.
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
The study session is not considered a “development project” and is not subject to the Permit
Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The project will be subject to the
Permit Streamlining Act if the applicant decides to formally submit a development application.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The municipal code does not require public noticing for study sessions, since it does not involve
action or decision by the Planning Commission and City Council. However, a courtesy notice
was sent to 58 property owners within 300 feet of the proposal site informing them of tonight’s
study session and the City Council study session.
The applicant held a voluntary neighborhood meeting on February 7, 2013 to introduce the
proposal to the community. The meeting was attended by the property owner; the applicant;
the applicant’s development, design, and construction team; a Planning Division representative;
and 13 members of the public.
The following is a summary of public comments received at the meeting. Staff comments, if any,
are provided in italics:
Support for the proposal and desire to redevelop the existing site.
Concerns about density, and suggestion for 2 to 4 units instead of 6 – The allowed density is 15
units/acre or 13 units. The project proposes less than half of the allowed density.
Concerns about the proposed height of the residences and privacy impacts – The allowed
height is 30 feet. The project proposes two-story buildings at a height of 25 feet and 5 inches, which is
lower.
Suggestion that the existing post-office box should be retained – At this time, the applicant has
no plans to remove the mailbox.
Clarification that the on-street parking proposed would be for public use – the on-street
parking will be available for public use.
Concerns about pedestrian safety and suggestions about various ways to enhance the area for
pedestrians.
Request that the existing trash receptacle near the VTA bus stop be serviced more often -- The
trash receptacle is owned by the VTA, but is not serviced regularly. The City has been servicing this
receptacle voluntarily until a formal maintenance agreement with the VTA is obtained.
Inquiries about the allowed intensity of commercial uses – The workspaces will be operated by the
person who occupies the home, and may include a few offsite employees as deemed necessary. The City
has the ability to establish permitted and prohibited uses for the workspaces as part of the formal review
process.
10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013
Inquiries about the construction process and timeline, and access on Silver Oak Way during
construction – This information will be provided once the applicant makes a formal application. The
applicant will be required to submit a construction management plan prior to issuance of building
permits.
Inquiries about the estimated cost of each of the proposed residences.
NEXT STEPS
A subsequent study session is scheduled with the City Council for May 7, 2013, which will
include review of the comments from the Planning Commission study session. If the applicant
decides to submit a formal development application following the study sessions, then the
project will be reviewed at subsequent public hearings by the Environmental Review Committee,
Planning Commission, and City Council.
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plan set
2 – General Plan Policy 2-32
3 – Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
4 – Live-Work regulations in other Santa Clara County cities
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\MISCELL\2013\Foothill Live Work Study Session PC 3-26-2013.doc
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 26, 2013
3.Ron Tate(Tate Development) Study Session for a potential application to demolish
Mike Amidi (Foothill Auto an abandoned servicestation and construct six single-
Service&Detail,Inc.) family residences withfive 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 TentativeMap
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 PlanningCommission
so that the applicant can go back and decide whether or not they want to amend the application based
on commentsreceived. 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 southwestcorner of Foothill Blvd. and Silver Oak
Way at 10121 No. Foothill Blvd. Applicant has requested a study session toreceive input from the
PlanningCommission 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 developmentpermits would be required including rezoning to allow for residential; a
tentative map application to subdivide the parcel for ownershipunits; a development permit to allow
6 units and architectural and site approval and tree removalpermits, all subjectto 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 unitsper gross acre is comparable and inmany 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 transportationconsultant commentedthat 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 conceptualproposal 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 4 March 26, 2013
He reviewed the proposal concepts, land use and zoning, mixed use options, as outlined in the staff
report. In order to introduceresidential 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 atStevens 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 presenceon the street
with storefronts and residential uses.
He reviewedguidelines for the study session: The Planning Commission cannot takeany 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 inthis location.
Staff answered questions on the proposed live-work units project.
Chair Sun:
Expressed concernabout the proposal to rezone from residential to commercial and questioned what
standards would apply when making the decision.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said considerations includewhat 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 wantsto 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 frontingFoothill, 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 onthe 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 PlanningCommission 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 5 March 26, 2013
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 rezoneto 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 neighborhoodmeeting there was positive
feedback from people who thought it would be a good transition to the neighborhood. The previous
gas station wassuccessful for many years until Highway 85 opened and when the traffic was diverted
they tried to keep it operationalbut 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 orlower 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 5,000homes 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 beganthe design
process, hehad 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 onits own
individual lot;there will be a HOA to set up the rules.
Chair Sun openedthe 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 waspleased to see it being approached from a study sessionsince the work-live units are newto
Cupertino.
She said it was an interesting concept and thepeople 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 truckstravel upand down the streets; and there is a senior facility across thestreet.
Whatever use is chosen to fit into that area must consider the safety of the pedestrians and residents.
She inquired aboutthe 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 6 March 26, 2013
Aarti Shrivastava answered Commissioners' questions:
In order toprevent someone other than the owner of the work-liveunit 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 notanticipated that it will takeany more staff
time than a home based officewould.
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 canand 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 ofthe application.
Said theycould 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 bean 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 notin the city limits today,and was being annexed; or if
it was an undeveloped site, it would not be put as commercial zoning orput as commercial use on a
land use plan.
In the subject projectit 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 attemptto makebelieve that it is a commercial project by putting unitsin 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 oneacre.
Said he felt the concept is basically silly and appears to be a way for the owner to getaround 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; peopledon'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 moreinsistentupon 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 challengingdoing something along Foothill and it seems like a good
transition, more as a transition then as providing any fiscal impacts. Staff does notfeel 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 7 March 26, 2013
Com.Brophy:
There are residential uses on theparcel 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 hisperspective it was a compromise and given the situation associated with the location
and past experience with regardto successful commercial endeavor there, he felt it wasthe best
compromise from the standpoint of utilizing the available space. It is presently an eyesore, an unused
gas station, and theproposed 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 Corn. Brophy's concern that it is not truly a commercialentity; it doesseem
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 concernedabout 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 meetthe expectations they have.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said if the applicantbrings back the project they will address the Commissioners' questions and
concerns.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 26, 2013
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting
Mayor's Monthly Meeting:
Chair Sun reported City Council projects beingconsidered 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 Commissionincluded the General Plan Amendment
and Tree Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjournedto the April 9,2013 meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabeth I.,Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: May 28, 2013