Loading...
109-8 - April 16, 2013 City Council staff report and meeting minutes.pdf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 16, 2013 Subject Study Session for a potential application to rezone a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential, demolish an abandoned automobile service station and construct 6 residential units, including 5 live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site improvements. Project Proponent: Ron Tate (Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc.) Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council review the conceptual proposal and provide comments. Study Session Format The project proponent has requested study sessions by the Planning Commission and City Council to receive input on the feasibility of the proposal. A formal development application has not been submitted, so no action, decision, or direction may be provided. Comments at this study session will not bind or commit the City to any future action. The purview of the City Council at this meeting is solely to provide comments and feedback on the concept presented at the study session. Staff suggests that the Council focus any comments on the major conceptual issues discussed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment A), including: Whether the proposed residential/commercial use is desirable at this location or maintaining the existing commercial use is preferable; 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 project proponent decides to formally submit an application, the project will be processed in accordance with appropriate City procedures, which will include public hearings by the Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. 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 Discussion A. Background The applicant held a voluntary neighborhood meeting on February 7, 2013 to introduce the proposal to the community. On March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the conceptual proposal. Please refer to Attachment A for the Planning Commission staff report with a detailed discussion of the proposal and preliminary considerations. Also attached to this report are the conceptual plan set (Attachment B), General Plan Policy 2-32 (Attachment C), the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance (Attachment D), and a table of live-work regulations in four other Santa Clara County cities (Attachment E). B. Discussion from the March 26, 2013 Planning Commission Study Session The following is a summary of Planning Commissioner questions and comments at the March 26, 2013 study session: Questions What types of uses are envisioned for the workspaces, and will there be restrictions on them? Does the developer have any experience with live-work developments in the area? Has the developer explored any alternative formats, such as purely residential? What are the major factors to consider for a rezoning request from commercial to residential? Is it easier to rezone to mixed-use instead of purely residential, as a compromise for losing commercial zoning? How would the City prevent the conversion of the workspaces to living area and from leasing or selling them to an entity other than the homeowner? What are the environmental considerations associated with the existing underground storage tanks from the previous service station use? Comments from Commissioners included: The site is currently an eyesore. The proposed architecture is appealing. The current proposal avoids having an unattractive large wall on Foothill Boulevard. It is a good idea to provide a workspace as an option for the homeowner. There could be potential enforcement problems related to the types of businesses in the workspaces, ensuring that the homeowner is the one operating the business, and converting the workspaces to living area. The proposed rezoning to commercial and residential is the best compromise for the site. If the site remains zoned for commercial, it will take a long time to develop, and if and when it does, it would have a higher potential for failure. The project should be residential only. Given that the site is located within an established residential area with no connection to any other commercial sites, the site would not currently be zoned for commercial if it was undeveloped or annexed into the City. Commercially-zoned land is scarce in the City. A primary commercial use would still be the best use for the site in order to serve the community. The workspaces will not generate significant sales tax revenue or generate foot traffic. One member of the public commented that live-work is an interesting concept, but expressed concerns about pedestrian safety in the area, the potential for converting workspaces to living area, and ensuring that some private open space will be provided for the project. The project proponent will address the above questions and comments if and when they decide to submit a formal application. ____________________________________ Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Planning Commission staff report from March 26, 2013 B - Conceptual plan set C - General Plan Policy 2-32 D - Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code E - Live-Work regulations in other Santa Clara County cities Tuesday, April 16, 2013  Cupertino City Council     Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Members of the City staff reviewed various sections of the Cupertino Municipal  Code related to operating accessory facilities in a park zone and whether a  conditional use permit was needed.  It was determined that a restaurant and bar  could operate in a park zone in conjunction with a recreation activity such as the  golf course.  It was also determined that because the City owns the facility, a  conditional use permit is not needed and that the restaurant can stay open past  11:00 p.m. at Council’s discretion as part of the lease agreement.     Chang moved to postpone this item to the next Council meeting. There was no  second to the motion.    Wong moved and Chang seconded to grant the reconsideration. The vote was 2‐ 2 with Wong and Chang voting yes, Santoro and Mahoney voting no, and Sinks  absent. No action was taken thereby upholding the City’s decision to extend the  lease on the Blue Pheasant Restaurant.    STUDY SESSION  18. Subject:  Study Session for a potential application to rezone a .87 gross acre parcel  from Planned Development General Commercial to Planned Development  General Commercial and Residential, demolish an abandoned automobile  service station and construct 6 residential units, including 5 live‐work units with  detached workspaces, along with associated site improvements    Recommended Action:  Discuss Planning Commissionʹs comments of the  potential project and provide direction for Foothill Boulevard Live‐Work  Development     Description: Applicant: Ron Tate (Tate Development) and Mike Amidi (Foothill  Auto Service & Detail, Inc); Location: 10121 N Foothill Blvd  APN# 342‐32‐070,  342‐32‐144; Study Session for a potential application to rezone a .87 gross acre  parcel from Planned Development General Commercial to Planned Development  General Commercial and Residential, demolish an abandoned automobile  service station and construct 6 residential units, including 5 live‐work units with  detached workspaces, along with associated site improvements. The project will  require rezoning the property form 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     Tuesday, April 16, 2013  Cupertino City Council     Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Written communications for this item included an email from Gayla Page, a staff  PowerPoint presentation, and plan set.     Associate Planner George Schroeder reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint  presentation.     Applicant Ronald Tate said that the current owners of the property asked him to  take a look at this site because it’s hard to close a service station with a store. He  said that the neighborhood is really mostly residential and there is not enough  traffic there to keep a gas station and convenient store in this location.  He said  that he is proud of his work, is LEED certified, and has done other work in  Cupertino. He said he doesn’t believe this is a good site for something like  Starbucks because it takes a certain element in the location to make the  commercial successful. When the station closed and moved tanks in 1999 there  was some residual soil which was contaminated in this area, but the new double  tanks that were installed in 2000 had no residue when they were removed. He  said that some remediation needs to happen for anything other than a gas station  and that he is prepared to do that to make sure it is safe. He said he believes it’s a  good place for residential and doesn’t think it would work with anything  commercial.  He also said he had 40 people attend a community meeting and  that density was really the only issue.  He said his proposal is offering something  unique to Cupertino and it worked out well in Los Angeles.  The project would  be managed by a professional off‐site management company to handle  landscaping, the rules and regulations, and the workspace units cannot have  employees, rent or sublet the space.  He said the workspace units are for use of  the homeowner for their particular business. He requested direction from  Council to either continue to move forward with the project or not.       Sam Nazhand said that he has lived behind the gas station for eight years. He  said he was always concerned about the safety of children in the neighborhood  when the gas station was open due to traffic and that he does not prefer having a  commercial use of the space.  He said he supported the project and that it would  be good for the community.       Jennifer Griffin said that the project is an interesting concept for the area. She  said she is glad they are retaining some commercial at this site and likes the idea  of having a study session at the Planning Commission as well as Council for  something like this. She said she thinks a home business is a good idea with  commercial along Foothill Boulevard.     Tuesday, April 16, 2013  Cupertino City Council     Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Council comments included: Like the idea of combining residential and  commercial with an office in the home; site not good for supporting strictly  commercial; okay with all residential but not R‐1; Foothill Blvd. does not have  much to support commercial; okay with proposed project or all housing; site  could work as commercial for preschools, tutoring studios, karate studios; would  like it to be zoned R‐1 to be more in‐line with the houses in the area; preference  toward lower density housing; do either strictly commercial or planned unit  development with housing; instead of work units in back  have  more yard space.    REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF     Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various  community events.     Santoro requested that Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.12.120 be added to an  upcoming agenda and be modified so that it does not require a tree be planted prior  to issuing a building permit for minor work.      ADJOURNMENT    At 10:25 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.    /s/Grace Schmidt  ____________________________  Grace Schmidt, City Clerk    Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are  available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777‐3223, and also on the Internet at  www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet.    Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U‐verse  Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on  Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast.  Videotapes are available at the  Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777‐2364.