Loading...
101-Draft Minutes of 04-22-2014.pdf CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. APRIL 22, 2014 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff present: Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao Associate Planner: George Schroeder Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the January 23, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Minutes of the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting: • Com. Takahashi noted on Page 26, his comments on Hamptons were from Chair Brophy; changes will be made to reflect the correction. MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: • It was noted that several emails had been received regarding the Public Hearing. No other written communications noted. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 3. DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, Foothill Live/Work Project. Development Permit to allow TM-2014-01, TR-2014-08, demolition of an abandoned auto service station and construct Z-2014-01 Tate Development six residential units, including five live-work units with detached (Foothill Auto Service & Detail workspaces along with associated site and off-site improvements Inc.) 10121 No. Foothill Blvd. Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six Residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; Tentative Map to subdivide a .66 net acre parcel into six residential lots and one common area lot; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of five Monterey Pine trees; Rezoning of a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential – P(CG, Res). Tentative City Council date: May 20, 2014 George Schroeder, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: • He reviewed the project application to demolish an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces together with associated site and off-site improvements. The project also includes rezoning a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential P(CG, Res); Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, Tree Removal Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as outlined in the staff report. • He reviewed the Power Point presentation as outlined in the staff report, including comments from the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, commercial site challenges, residential interface challenges; rezoning; workspace uses/intensity; proposed site plan; architectural review; parking/traffic; tree removals/planting plan; Environmental Assessment; and outreach/public comments. • Staff supports the project and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council for the rezoning approval, Tentative Map, Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval; Tree Removal Permit, Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Council Hearing is scheduled for May 20 and if approved, second reading schedule for June 2. • Staff answered Commissioners’ questions. Below is a summary of staff responses to Commissioners’ questions regarding the proposed project. Each unit is required to provide 2.8 parking spaces which follows the city’s townhome standards; 2 spaces are enclosed in a garage, and .8 are for guest parking. Staff is putting in a condition to prohibit owner renting out the commercial unit; already in conditions. With regards to the environmental assessment, would the mitigation of the contaminated soils be required whether it be converted to commercial or residential; yes, any kind of significant redevelopment of the site would require mitigation, especially its being converted to a lot of residential uses which would introduce sensitive receptors to the site. In any case of a full scale development there would be cleanup of the gas station. Interior noise environment … the 5 homes could be subject to more than the sound ordinance would require; is that a possibility even after all the sound proofing and the highly rated windows … it could be a possibility but there are city measures to ensure that the noise level maximums are met; there will be a post construction requirement that the city’s noise consultant goes out and tests/confirms that the noise levels will be in the noise ordinance and if any additional measures need to be incorporated, the project would be required to carry them out. The Astoria Townhomes on Imperial Ave. has 13 units designated for live/work. Sound walls are discouraged; typically gates and other walls to block off residential areas from the street are discouraged but not prohibited. There could be mitigation measures such as shrubs or vines to mask the wall. There are General Plan policies that talks about encouraging strongly projects to open up to Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 3 the community. Public Works would not likely be supportive of having houses facing Foothill with the driveway curb cuts and garages because of the safety factor. With residences facing Silver Oak there would be the potential of the sound wall issue. If the owner of the live/work unit does not live in the unit, they cannot rent the unit out separately; the conditions will be set forth in the CC&Rs. Changes to the CC&Rs would have to go through city review, through modification of their approval. Com. Gong suggested restrictions during work hours for the guest/visitor parking. Clients visits in excess of one person at a time is not allowed. It can be specified no more than 2 people at a time in the case of a couple visiting a tax person. There will be a row of screening trees and shrubs along the west and south parameters. The proposed location is not a good retail site. The location is somewhat disconnected from the primary center of the city. Mr. Tate, Applicant: • Said he has done 30 condo projects with different aspects; first one of this nature; has put together a Homeowners Association and very strict CC&Rs and then hired an offsite property management company to manage the landscaping and the HOA. What is going to happen to the workspace? There will be some strict rules and regulations; when finished working with the city and city attorney on that there will be some documents that people will be pleased with it. If one had to go out and police it themselves,, it would be a nightmare; it is done by the HOA which takes home ownership seriously, they have a big investment. There are two property owners behind us; Mr. Nass and Mr. Pleshay, and Mr. Tate has been in close touch with them because their concern has been line of sight of the project. They are going to plant a hedge on their side of the property that will be 12’ 6” from the beginning above the wall which will totally screen their visual impact from the property on their side of the fence. Said he has tried hard to make them happy with what they are doing and feels successful because they will have no line of site of the project. • Said he was in a joint venture with the owner and when the project is approved would become a full partner and would be the developers of the property. They have been working together for three years to see if there is a commercial use for the parcel. • In the commercial business if you can’t make a gas station and convenience store combination work, you will have a difficult time getting anything else to work. Previous business failed miserably and they closed it in 2010 and they have been working with the brokerage community till now to see if there was another commercial use and it doesn’t have the right demographics, or the right traffic flow. It doesn’t have a stoplight; it is not a hard corner and couldn’t come up with anything; that is why they have pursued the residential aspect to it and have been working on for 20 months. • Said their research showed that they would have to spend about $700K on environmental cleanups; there is a set of economics that has to work with any development. With land costs, you can’t afford to have a day care center; the land is too expensive; daycare needs a very small building and a lot of yard space. It doesn’t work economically. Com. Gong: • Said currently there are five live/work units and one pure residential unit and she felt Unit 6 was shoehorned in. Asked the applicant what the economical impact would be if the sixth unit was eliminated. Mr. Tate: • Said the economic impact of taking away the sixth unit would be drastic, between the environmental cleanup and the cost of the land. Com. Gong: • Said she felt it was restrictive with the sixth home. She asked if there were illustrations of what the sides of Units 1 through 5 looks like; the interiors; are there windows, is it solid siding for privacy and aesthetics? Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 4 Jesus Hernandez, Architect: • Regarding the courtyards, looking at the site plan the property lines abut up against the north side of Unit 2; wherever that property line abuts there is no window opening on that side of the wall, but in Unit 1 there are openings on that side of the wall. Consequently every single home there is no privacy concerns in between the two homes in that courtyard space; essentially the northern units get views to the south and the one below does not because of that property line. In every courtyard there is only one wall with windows, which is the one that does not have the property line up against it. There are openings on the southern side of the homes. • Said there are no restrictions to allow a covered walkway, so the most of the homes have that side yard where there is a parking space towards the end and that courtyard space is sunken down below that portion, as you step up to the building, also from that point you step down to the courtyard so it creates a separate level of differentiation between the home, the courtyard and the workspace so there is some difference there. It does not necessarily need a covered patio; you want to get good daylight in there for it to be a more enjoyable space. Com. Gong: • There is no restriction for not allowing it. Gary Chao: • They are not proposing any walkways; if they were to come back later and show a walkway or covered walkway they would discuss the building code and the fire code if allowed. He said it would not be a major issue, although he agreed with the applicant that the good weather and having light in the small constraint courtyard area, it is probably best to leave it open. Mr. Tate indicated he would plant a 12’6” high hedge to provide privacy for the neighbors. Mr. Tate: • Said the hedge would be taller than that, it would be 12’ 6” above the wall which would screen them from any line sight from the homes. You can’t have it both ways; you can either see the houses or have privacy. He said there probably won’t be an optimal solution for everyone, but he stressed they went to great lengths to come up with a solution because they didn’t want to see any part of the houses; it is a solution that is environmentally inviting because they are planting a lot of greenery. • Said he received feedback from Mr. Nazhand that he was concerned about the light into his unit; however he has some very high Cyprus trees in his back yard, higher that what they were going to plant. Said he was not aware if they had predicted how many minutes of sunlight will be blocked by the hedge in the morning. Christian Avira, co-owner of architectural firm: • Said they take the sun studies very seriously at their company; and have a history of doing townhouse projects similar to the proposal where the two challenges are view vs. sunlight. After much consideration they modified the original proposal to locate Unit 6 to front off DeAnza Blvd. in order to maximize the amount of morning sun they would get during the winter months and still provide some shading during the harsher summer months, while still meeting the city requirements proposing a lot that is within the means of the 15 foot setback requirements that are typical within the context of this community. Com Sun: • Asked if the business was approved but not successful, would they expect to apply for rezoning to the full residential or prefer to go residential now? Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 5 Mr. Tate: • Said he has presented an interesting concept and has had many calls since starting the project from people who are excited about buying a unit with their own private work space. Gary Chao: • Addressed the scenario if the business in the live/work unit failed; said that they do have usage standards in the condition that goes beyond the type of uses that can and cannot be allowed including that the floorplan has to be demonstrated to the city before allowing construction. • Said the storefront design is very transparent; the rules state that it cannot be covered and put up a blind and screen it such as the Imperial sites were able to. The way the condition is set up makes it difficult for somebody to convert it into a living room, because of all the provisions, the sign, the frontage requirements, the transparency, and the floor plan. • If the owner did want to transfer the usage later into residential, they would have to come back as a whole, instead of one entity a building with six entities go through a process and a public hearing and provide justification to all. There may have to be design changes, architectural changes, to make it suitable for a living room or a residential space; the way it is designed its position and all the transparency provided is not suitable for a bedroom. There is a process, a way out, for whatever reason later on, as a group if it doesn’t work out they can come back and make some adjustments but they do have to go through the Planning Commission. Com. Sun: • Asked if they were running the business as their first try instead of 50 years experience for this type of combined business and residential together; is there any alternative to transform it into any other type of business? Mr. Tate: • When the buyers come in the CC&Rs and rules and regulations will be explained; that is what they are buying and that is the way they have to do it. They cannot change it; it is part of the CC&Rs and rules and regulations; if that is not what they are going to do, they should not buy the unit. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road: • Said his main concern about the project reflects Chair Brophy’s concern about the size of the units; they are 2200 sq. ft. without garage and without the office and the ones that have the office are 3,000+ sq. ft. which is larger than the city would normally allow on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot as a detached single family home. It does not however, meet the FAR for there or the parking; because of the size it is felt that it would be used as would a home of that size. • That means you would normally expect to see 4 parking spaces per unit and it would normally expect to see the 45% FAR. As suggested by others, reduction to five units would remedy that; reduction to four units would be wonderful, but economics are not so good. Said he understood and was sympathetic with the applicant’s economics argument that it is useful to have more units there. He pointed out that it is his partner who is setting the land price. Julia Tien, 22386 Cupertino Road: • Said her main concerns were the traffic issues on the parcel. If all the parking spaces were occupied by cars, there is no turnaround space inside. What you do not want is someone dropping off their child and putting their car on Foothill Expwy. There was a mailbox in front of that gas station; just south of there are bus stops on both sides of Foothill and there is a crosswalk at Cupertino Road; where there was a fatality about year ago. They requested that the Council put flashing lights; cars don’t stop. This plan has pedestrian access to the work spaces but you need to make sure there are no Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 6 pedestrians crossing at Silver Oaks and Foothill; it is not a safe place to cross. The other question is regarding the people moving in to the work spaces; 50 years down the line they will retire; what will happen to their work spaces? Are they told they have to move out because they can’t use the work spaces anymore? Is this going to be their lifetime home; how is the live/work arrangement going to grow with the family in terms of their lifestyle as they reach retirement age? Coast Live Oak trees are huge trees with 20 foot diameter; how will they fit on the parcel if you plant very many of those. Jeff Plashay, resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said his main concern was Unit 6 with the view and screening because it will be a huge building right behind his house. Said he would rather have the privacy trees on the applicant’s parcel, but not have Unit 6 because it will block his view; the balcony on Unit 6 will look down on his back yard. Sam Nazhand, 22566 Silver Oak Way: • Resides behind Unit 6. Said he was originally supportive of the project until he learned about Unit 6; which is being built mostly in his back yard and with its height, it will not get the sunlight which would result in privacy issues. He referred to photos which illustrated the loss of his view, and the amount of current sunlight and loss of sunlight into his home. Said he did not have a preference for residential or commercial; commercial zoning would increase the parking problems. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com Sun: • Said he felt the public hearing ran smoothly except for the last speaker who raised some serious concerns about the sunlight and blocking of his views. He said he was interested in listening to the applicant’s rebuttal; can anything be done; is there anything you can do, or whether his claim is correct, is it factual with no dispute? Mr. Tate: • Said they have gone to great lengths to please everyone, but if every subdivision was subject to the next door neighbor not seeing any part of the property, there would never be anything built. Every subdivision that is built, one house sees another, you see the front and the back; they volunteer to plant a hedge on their side of the property. The homeowner may lose a few minutes of sunlight in the morning; but they are trying to give him the best of both worlds. If they don’t want the hedge it would save about $90K if they don’t plant hedge. Said Mr. Nazhand could either have all the sunlight he desires and see the houses, or they can plant the hedge. They would trim the hedge, keep it trimmed at the top of the roof line if he doesn’t want to see that, and they will make certain to include it in the CC&Rs that the HOA will have to trim that hedge so that it is just one or two inches above the roofline. The homeowner will lose a few moments of sunlight in the morning but he will have all the privacy he wants. It will also provide some sound barrier from the noise from Foothill Blvd. He said he wants to try to please everybody, but in the business it just isn’t possible. Com. Sun: • Said he understood that the applicant has really tried to please all parties. Technically there is no problem for his claim that it isn’t just blocking for a few minutes in the morning but it entirely blocks the sunshine. He asked if it was true based on his explanation. Mr. Tate: • Said that staff noted in their presentation that they were 15 feet off of that setback; Within Cupertino, DeAnza would technically be considered the front, so that would be the side yard and the rear yard is where the balcony is located. One thing to consider in terms of the views on the sunlight, when they Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 7 are putting a project like this on market, views are by direction, so it has to be designed in a manner that someone who is going to purchase it doesn’t want to have the same view concerns as the neighbor behind. It goes both ways, therefore they limit the amount of windows along the side yard; they are placed high; frost the glass and in terms of the sun and solar orientation, this is the one unit where they slope the roof towards the east, so as the sun rises the roof peak isn’t blocking his view and the sun angle is in his favor. He discussed the photos showing the placement of the sun at various times of the day and the resulting privacy impacts. He noted that the project would not affect the present areas where the sun shines into the bedrooms; nor will the hedges impact the privacy. The balcony is located in the rear so that nobody’s balcony is looking into their side yard, and regarding the property owner to the south, they will continue to add a screen wall along that side to block his angle. He said they were willing to alter the design of that balcony, and are also confident that the way they designed it is going to maximize his privacy and still be a benefit to the future buyer of that project. • Pointed out that it has been an ongoing process over the last 20 months; they have met with the city’s consulting architect and gone back and forth numerous times; privacy issue was the number one concern of his before they began the project and they received positive feedback on the design as noted in the staff report. They mitigated the situation in terms of privacy and sunlight and he felt comfortable as a team member stating that the developer and their own consulting architect were in agreement. The public hearing was closed. Gary Chao: • Said the city does not have any specific policies or directives they can use to make findings specific to sunlight and views, hence the difficulty responding to some of the concerns. It is totally within their ability to talk about architecture, building setbacks, height, and square footage. • Pointed out that if they are inclined to talk about consistency or compatibility of massing or distance, it is more appropriate to address it more in concrete terms that the ordinance can relate to in terms of height, setback; they are not able to address one person’s view of the sky or perspective on what might be the prevalent time of the day that the sun would hit. Vice Chair Lee: • Asked if staff would support a neighbor having full line of sight into another resident’s yard from his balcony? Gary Chao: • Under the R1 ordinance you are able to have second floor balconies and they would have to be mitigated by privacy screening; it would not necessarily be supported or denied; they would demonstrate a cone of vision, have them provide either waivers from the neighbors or have a solution for privacy screening. Com. Takahashi: • Given height is a concern with regard to the view, what is the feasibility from an economic standpoint; one design, repeated six times is the most economical solution but are there any other mitigating elements for Unit 6 that could reduce its height in any way. Gary Chao: • Reiterated the Planning Commission has the ability to discuss the height, square footage, the unit is about 2600 sq. ft. two levels, setbacks 15 ft., the height was clarified; you can have direct dialogue with the architect to see if there are any possible adjustments. To the extent you were to offer additional setback, that would have to be absorbed from the floor plan or if you wanted to potentially reduce the square footage it would come out from the second floor but that is something you can Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 8 discuss with the applicant. Chair Brophy: • Normally the policy is sitting through neighborhood squabbles about people being unhappy about a two story house next to a one story house, the difference in this case is it is a planned development, not a subdivision where someone wants to simply put up a second floor onto their one story home. Said he was trying to make the project work without unduly burdening the properties behind, primarily Mr. Nazhand’s because it is directly behind Unit 6, and it would seem that it would not be unrealistic under a Planned Development to consider the possibility of limiting that to one or 1-1/2 stories for that one unit. It may not make the applicant happy but in terms of trying to minimize the problem with the two duplex owners behind them; that is one possible solution. Gary Chao: • It is a possibility; they have the discretion given the fact that they have a Planned Development and all the entitlements. He said if they wanted to go that route, make sure the applicant has a solution for that or put it in their condition; staff can work with the applicant to work out a revision. Since they are talking about the possibilities and proximity to adjacent duplexes for the duplex home, he emphasize the fact that they are also allowed to have a two story home; presently the situation is a single story duplex being compared with the project; in the future there is the opportunity for the property owner of the duplex to add on and have a two story level as well. • There was a discussion about grading, wherein applicant answered Commissioners’ questions. Com. Takahashi: • Referring to Page A-18 relative to grading, a feasibility question; looking at the existing grade in comparison to the proposed grade, is an additional foot of grading an option? Does that create a problem on the entry from Silver Creek given there will be another foot of height difference. Said he was looking for what the possibilities are for height mitigation on Unit 6. Male speaker (?) • The existing grade as it stands follows the grade to a fair degree but could an additional foot of grading take place which would create a height difference of one foot between Unit 6 and the adjacent neighbor; it could create another foot of vertical delta on the entrance at Silver Creek. The question is, is that even an option. Chair Brophy: • Said there was a concern about how Unit 6 interacts with the two duplex properties to the west, and to that extent are they in a position to provide some ideas as to how it might be mitigated Applicant: • Said they use building information modeling in the office so everything is surveyed; it is modeled digitally including all the houses next door so they are accurately represented as well as all of the trees. One of the things that is known contradicts what staff said about the difference in height, because DeAnza if flowing down toward Foothill and then ramping down, there is actually a difference of 5 feet from the adjacent neighbors grade, not 3, from property line to the finish floor of Home 6. Regarding that what you have always been discussing is a two story house, we look at it more as a ground floor being semi-subterranean because that is what it is; that was the first mitigating issue that we put into play. Looking at the finished floor, the second floor of all of these units, especially the ones along Foothill, they are actually in line with grade of the finish floor of the neighboring properties. The height needs to be measured from the peak of the roof at its highest point and what it is showing now is where we are having clear stories that are shooting towards the east and Home 6. Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 9 We can remove those altogether and if we do you can see that the peak of height 6 is actually already a foot lower than the neighboring properties, height and peak. Said they would confirm with the civil engineer that they have room to lower it some more; but to get into Home 6 they actually step down steps off the internal walkway. Referring to the sections of Unit 6 and elevations of Unit 6 on Page A16, relative to the neighbor to the south you will see on that elevation, if they are in their back yard looking at that; they are actually seeing a one story house from that side. The response is Yes, they could probably look at a one foot reduction. Male Speaker: • Said they could probably lower it as well, and do a balance of grading and lowering the peak; they can go fully to a flat roof; one of the things the consulting architect wanted was to show more variation because every unit was exactly the same, so they went to a variation of a flat roof and a peaked roof and that one still has a peaked roof on it, so they can lower that peak height as well. Applicant: • Said that they are trying to mitigate the concerns and come into the community with a valuable project, not just something that is developer driven; obviously the economics need to work and they are trying to design not only what works, but what fits and blends within a forward thinking community such as Cupertino. Vice Chair Lee: • Said that although talking about details of the setbacks, and line of sight etc., the Planning Commission is supposed to govern land use issues. She explained to the newer commissioners that in 2009 and 2010 about every six months, they would receive applications for day care use or specialized schools. They are popular here and they have to go through a lot of hoops and use permits, etc. because they are not allowed in the retail areas, on Stevens Creek and City Center. They need to decide where they want them to be located; presently day care centers are in people’s homes; there is definitely a niche for that. There has not been a lot of research on it for the proposed site; it is not ideal for residential, the environmental assessment says it is too loud for residential; and it is evident that retail doesn’t work because there are no stop lights, not enough cars. Said she felt they should explore other uses such as day care centers, karate studios, dance studios; they are in metropolitan and many other areas. • Said for land use, she preferred it to remain as commercial. Due to the fact about the land use and the neighbors do not support the project; she was sympathetic to the neighbors’ concerns and said she did not support the application and would deny it. Com. Takahashi: • Said that it was clear what is there now is not acceptable to anyone; owners, neighbors, and there is overwhelming evidence that commercial use is problematic and economically not viable, especially since whoever will develop it for commercial use would have to go through all of the environmental remediation which has to be factored into the economics of a dance studio or similar use, and it probably not survive. The proposal is as good a compromise as possible given the location and the need for housing on the west side; there is not a lot of sites where there is a possibility of adding housing on the west side of the town. The residents’ concerns are legitimate from the standpoint of impact and any mitigation with regard to height would be of benefit with regard to a synergistic relationship with the neighbors and the neighborhood. The restrictions on the use that are in place or proposed are adequate to protect against misuse, which is acceptable. • He complimented the architect on the look and feel of the development from the standpoint of the frontage; the project fits well with younger individuals, families in the work force; overall from a standpoint of impact to the greater neighborhood, it is a positive project and most of the neighbors would benefit from having the project move forward. Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 10 • Said he supported the project and it is an overall improvement for the city and that specific location. Com. Sun: • Supports the project. • Said although they reviewed the land use he preferred to leave land use for either the developer or property owner. If they propose day care center or some other use, it would probably be acceptable, but for the private owner the important thing is a day care center cannot make money; they buy the property now but they eventually go bankrupt. • Relative to the project, most of his concerns have been addressed except Unit 6; which is not an insolvable problem. There is room for the applicant to work with the neighbor to reduce the height either of the house or Unit 6 or do something else. He said he would prefer to approve the project with conditions to reduce Unit 6 to solve the neighborhood impact. Com. Gong: • Commended staff and architect for creating a challenging piece of property. Said she was sympathetic to the developer’s ROI requirements; they are not doing this for the public; the concerns are from the existing neighbors. The architect has given respectful responses to the neighbors and she said she would support approval of the project. • A second concern which is easily addressed is the visitor parking; it is important because it currently is a live/work development that the outside parking, guest parking spaces be restricted during the daytime, post a sign that it is for guest use only during normal operating hours. The residents would appreciate that as well. Chair Brophy: • Responded to Vice Chair Lee’s concerns; said that in the last few years there have been a number of applications come before them in which he would describe the staff as giving grudging approval to day care centers and the like, in retail space that was built by developers or commonly mandated by the city as part of a residential project, that couldn’t get anybody else. The applicant would state that the space has been vacant for 5 years, and they have gone through 3 brokers, and are powerless to do more. They had visions of great retail sales and vibrant street activity but ran up against the facts of life, hence they would be approved. • What that may mean is that those are the kind of locations that businesses go to and are in effect the failure locations, because the rents are so low that nobody else is willing to outbid what they can afford to pay. The letters from the three brokers are pretty damming relative to the potential for commercial development and the idea that you can build brand new space on any site at an economic level for Kung Fu classes or after school or day care is simply not the case. This has been a complicated site; he said he appreciated that the applicant and architects have worked very hard. • Said the only way he felt it could work is to set a maximum height limit for Unit 6 that is significantly below what it currently is. He suggested 5 feet below where it is now and if it can be done through lowering the unit, and flattening the roof. If not they will be in a situation where your client may have no choice but to have a one story unit for Unit 6. He said he felt they were trying to balance it off, and are concerned about the unit, the duplexes immediately adjacent to No. 6 and he is trying to figure out how best to bring it down to a level that would seem to be less obtrusive. • One other issue which didn’t come up in the discussion, as part of the conditions there is the point that the residential part of the unit may not be used for commercial and the commercial part of the unit may not be used for residential. He said he had no problem with the first part because it is meant to be a residential project but given that the whole concept of live/work is kind of fake in this position; this is not a live/work type of location. He suggested deleting the line on Page 69, 8aii that requires that the commercial not be used as residential; if somebody wishes to use that front part for elderly parents or live-in nanny, there is no reason why it would not work. It is not a commercial street; all have agreed that it will mostly be used as home offices, or at best offices where people will work from and have an Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 11 occasional visitor. • Said he saw no reason why if somebody wanted to convert it to residential because it will likely happen; he would rather be honest up front and it wouldn’t make the project worse, and would likely reduce the likelihood of future homeowner conflicts. • With the exception of Vice Chair Lee there is a consensus vote to recommend approval of a project; there is concern about the height of Unit 6 and how it affects the duplexes to the west, especially the one on the north side. Said his concern about whether or not they need to enforce the “no residential” in the front part, he would understand if there is no interest in that. Other concerns are the exterior parking, outside parking; restrictions during normal working hours is important; if in fact they do get used as office uses. Said he agreed with Com. Gong that there should be some posting on that, an appropriate means by which that can be managed. Also the restriction of one person, creating a one- client unit; staff’s terminology of one client unit is appropriate. Com. Takahashi: • In terms of comment of allowing residential in the front, that may require revision of other elements in what was originally proposed. He is undecided whether or not it should be part of it or not, but if that is decided, there are some other things that might become inconsistent with that; it would need to change in terms of the report. Com. Sun: • Asked Vice Chair Lee if she might reconsider her decision because he believes this property is better suited for a day care center or preschool and those kinds of decisions are left for the developer to decide, and the role of the Commission is to decide whether it can accept it or deny it. Perhaps it could be considered, put in some conditions and let the project move forward. Vice Chair Lee: • Said that rather than it be day care, it could be specialty schools, tutoring, karate or kung fu studios, dance studio, or martial arts. Commented that when they joined the project, they knew there was going to be more remediation and remediation is expensive. It was not a surprise to them; they have been in the business for many years. Chair Brophy: • Said he felt the owners of the site did not know that remediation was so costly. Com. Takahaski: • Said it was clear from the brokers’ letters and driving by the site, that the alternative to some project predominantly residential in character is not a retail space, whether it is aimed at specialty schools, etc. the alternative is to leave the gas station closed and blocked off for years to come. Vice Chair Lee: • Said she suggested residential because on No. Foothill there are a lot of big houses; it doesn’t have to be small houses with huge FARs; residential would be acceptable. Staff said that if residential, if you cut into two lots you could minimize the curb cutouts; allowing more setbacks; maybe noise wouldn’t be an issue but they are not able to support residential facing Foothill or facing Silver Oak for two reasons. The traffic engineer isn’t supportive of the ones facing it, so as you drive down Foothill there is a lot of big houses. It would add a lot if you put two big houses there, two lots, residential, it would be pretty and people would pay top price for two new houses on Foothill, but staff is not supportive of residential. She said she was open to residential and open to commercial. Com. Sun: • He said he felt Vice Chair Lee was going to the other extreme; said at the beginning he was concerned Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 12 about the live/work condition which looked like a fake project; either it go to the residential or to commercial; the applicant has a design for the current model and he did not feel he could convince them; therefore he would approve the project with the condition on Unit 6 height to reduce it. Said he was concerned about the applicant’s financial interest and business interest, whether they can go to the first floor or the single floor or reduce height. He said he concurred with Com. Gong’s suggestion to add another parking condition and modify the other condition. Com. Cong: • Suggested modified language regarding parking: To restrict guest/visitor parking to normal working hours … day and time residential usage restriction for normal working hours, M-F, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. during weekends and evenings anybody can use. Chair Brophy: • Regarding Com. Sun’s earlier point, suggested improved language: Minimum height two story because one story height equivalent is going to be difficult to do without it being one story; would a more flexible solution be minimum height, two stories or just an overall maximum height. Gary Chao: • Said the applicant suggested that they get rid of the clear story and manipulate the gray to the maximum extent possible; 5 feet is achievable which will result in achieving the effective visual alignment with the adjacent or even lower than adjacent duplex. He suggested being more concrete and suggest that to the maximum extent possible reduce the height to 5 feet, either by reducing the clear story, lowering the building and/or manipulating lowering the grade; that way it would be clear for them to work with it. Chair Brophy: • Said they could do it at 5 feet; state you just want a one story house but at 5 feet you probably get the result you are looking at. He said he felt they should set a standard. Said he felt they presented an interesting concept and have had a lot of calls from people who are excited about buying a unit where they have their own private workspace. Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 4-0-1, Vice Chair Lee voted No, to recommend approval to City Council approval Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, TR-2014-08 and EA-2014-01 with the following amendments: (a) include a clause in the Development Permit regarding the restricting of guest visiting parking during weekday working hours; (b) correct the one person clause in the current language to refer to one client unit, and (c) modify the Architectural and Site Approval such that Unit 6 have a building height not to exceed 20 ft. 9 ins. from the current proposal. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Meeting held regarding current agenda item. Housing Commission: No report. Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 13 Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Bike and Ped Commission: • Has requested and awaiting funding for a bike rodeo, the Mayor recommended they do a combined event with the Teen Commission and speak to Larry Dean who is in control of a one-time funding from Apple to fund the event or survey what is possible with the funding. • Also putting together a survey that will go out to parents of school age children to understand their attitudes to letting their kids walk and ride to school because it is up to the parents. TIC Commission: • They have hired a consulting firm to do a full city assessment of the connectivity and of the dark spots and then do a master plan for a buildout. The study period is 12 months; this is a long term but master plan solution to the dead spots. • Erin Cook has spoken to them about replacing all city vehicles with green vehicles and that is in discussion now. Library Commission: • On April 12 the Library had a demo on 3D printers; they are in process of purchasing 3D printers for Cupertino residents’ use. Parks and Recreation: • They have commissioned a McClellan Ranch Preserved History Study. It would be interesting to break it up and have different pieces published in the monthly newsletter for people to learn more about the history. Public Safety: • One week walk to school, beginning April 26; $1500 was approved by the Cupertino Alert System to discuss flood issues and current availability of receiving alerts. The first three weekends of June the Commission will send out teams of volunteers with tablets going to residents’ homes to knock on doors and sign them up. Teen Commission: • Polling high school students to see what stores they would like to see in Vallco Shopping Center. A toppings and tea event will be held on Sat. May 17th and requests two reps from each commission to attend to speak to teens about happenings in Cupertino. Also creating a Roots for Life tree in the Teen Center and inviting teens to write their dreams and aspirations on a leaf for a tree in the Library, possibly in September and October during Library Month. Fine Arts Committee: • Commissioned a coffee table book to capture all of the public art in Cupertino; currently available for download on the website; or for purchase for $55 each. • Considering conducting an Idol competition similar to American Idol. The Mayor recommended they work with the Rotary Club on the project. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. Mayor’s Report: • Reported Earth Day was successful. • There is a proposal to create permit parking in the Library lot. • The Quinlan Center is being updated. Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 14 Misc: • Chair Brophy reported on the letters from the three brokers regarding the commercial potential; they also discussed in some letters two of the potential housing element sites, one at Stevens Creek and Foothill and Foothill and McClellan; make sure it goes to the planner who is handling the housing element. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the May 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary