The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-22-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:00 p.m PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal ABSENT: Commissioner Rodgers STAFF: Planner Suzanne Thomas, Director Livingstone and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2005. (APPROVED, NO CHANGES) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The lawgenerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanningCommission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 16, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, or ten (10) calendar days for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION # 04-045 (397-06-064) - CHIU,18495 Woodbank Way; -Request Design Review Approval to add approximately 2,908 square feet to the existing 3,199 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,108 square feet. The project will also include a 2,337 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 64,904 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 26 feet. (SUZANNE THOMAS) (APPROVED 5-0-1, ABSTAIN - SCHALLOP, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) 2. APPLICATION # OS-128 (386-10-043) FILIZELTI, 18570 "A" Prospect Road; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Dental Office in an existing tenant space located in a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. (SUZANNE THOMAS) (APPROVED 6-0, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 7:35 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the Ciry Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerkC~saratoga. ca. us. Not cation 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Cert~cate ofPosting ofAgenda: I, Andrea Sandoval, Office Specialr'st for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga was posted on June 16, 2005 at the office of the Ciry of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag ca. us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail., please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005 Rou. CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-045 - CHID Item 1 18495 Woodbank Way 2. Application #OS-128 - FILIZELTI Item 2 18570 "A" Prospect Road SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged for the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. • ~, CTIY OF SARATOGA pIANIl~Tt,NG COMMISSION AGENDA' DAn» Wray, June 22, 2005 - 7:00 pm, PLACE: Council Chambn~Kivic Theater,13777 Fnaicvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Mating n.A Rott CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, RobeLt Kundtz, Linda Rodgezs, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chatr Susie Nagpal PLEDGEOFALLEGiANCE 1VIINUTES: Draft Minutes fpm Regular Planning Commission Mooting of Junc 8, 2005. c~w+i. COMMUr1ICAnONS - Any member of the Public will br xllowad a~ the Phrnrrfgg Caa~mismiaa far up m t~aemiavt+es as mirmcns nat ~ tbfs Ada. 7helawgrrxrxUyp~ the P C~mmfasiaa firm ayssarsa~ err man au stash itcma Howrvrt; the Plrumftlg Camrnr~apn may inat~cx_srxh`'r~c~aardiggly Oral uniCxrtians r~nderPlannitlgCamnsisaian drmcaan tvs~' ,p~ UR1A~,.COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRK.'IION TO STAFF won to stail< rggarding actions on current oral Communications. C~IkT OF P06`I'ING AGENDA t to G~ Code 54954.2, the agenda foa~ this mooting was ptopezly poeood on June 16, 2005. REPO~t? OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may fik an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (1S) calendar days of the daft of the decision, or ten. (IO) .calendar days for a conditional use permit, ptusuant to Municipal Cale 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS Ott f~aoaested persona .may appear .~ be heard at the above time and placx. Applicants/Appellants and their. emativ~ea have a total of tm mtuutes mudmn~m for n6 ~ateznmta. Members of the Public may ©osm~t an a~ ftem f+oe up to three mimites. ~ and their relmseatatives have a total of .flue mimes foe closing statements. 1. APPLIfAITOhT # 04-04s. (397-OC-064) - CHIU,18495 woodbsnk ~Vay; < Request Design Review Approval to add appro~matel}- 2,908`square feet to the existing 3,199 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,108 square foot. Th+c projoct will also incluck a 2;337 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 64,904 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The tnaximnm height of the residence will be approximately 26 feet. (f OHN LIVINGSTOi~IE) 2. APPLICATION. # 05-128 (386-10-043) FILIZELTI, 18570 "A" Prospect R~o~d; -Request for a Comiitional Usc Permit to allow a Dental Office in an existing tenant space located in a N~ighburhood Commercial Zoning District. (JOHN LMNGSTONE) . • ~In cgtttp~tx~tcx wit~i thcAmrricans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ifyrw need special assistance to participate In cd~tact the City Clerk at (40B) 8681269 or ctrlerk~saramga.ca.us Notification 48hours poriat td tlic m-il1 enable the City to make nasoriabk amts m enstur accessibility m this • C1e~-~s.~o~ADA rir~err~ Cert~cate afPol'~grrida: I, Marra Sarxlo~ (~iarSJtxcialist for the City ofSaratoga, declair that the farrrgaing r~grnda for the meeting of the Pli~{g Ca~rrtssion of the City of Saratoga. was posted on, June 1~ 2gOS at the crBScr of the City of :. Sarit~pga, .13T1?Fritltv~rtle AvrnuG Saratoga. CA 95070 and was available for public irview at ghat location. 2'7ie ~ta~e fsAlav atbk on tht City's wrbsite at wwwsaratoga.ca. us . i _ • tf you t~rrigidl~ oo reodYe the Ageada's via amail. please smd ~ a-mail sddt+a~t o0 D `~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan and Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular•Meeting of May 25, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Chair Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May 25, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 19. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent and Commissioner Schallop abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 2, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b); 10 days for Conditional Use Permits. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #05-114 (389-13-035) PARK5, 18612 Paseo Lado: -The applicant is requesting design review approval to remodel an existing 1,468 single-story home and construct a 1,900 square foot two-story addition. The applicant proposes to remove the existing detached garage structure in the rear yard, and construct an attached two-car garage. The total floor area, including the garage, will be 3,368 square feet. The property is 10,867 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. (LATH VASUDEVAN) • Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking design review approval to allow the remodel of a one-story residence and a 969 square foot two-story addition. The total square footage is 3,368 square feet. There is no basement proposed. The maximum height would be 23 feet, which is similar to other homes on the street. • Explained that the detached garage will be demolished and a new attached two-car garage constructed. • Said that this project is not significantly different in scale or size to other homes in the neighborhood. There is adequate facade articulation. Materials include sand stucco, white trim and shingle roofing. • Reported that there are six ordinance-sized trees. All are expected to survive if the Arborist's recommendations are followed. The Arborist recommends the removal of Tree #4 (Siberian Elm) due to poor structure. At this time, the applicant has no intention of removing that tree. • Recommended approval. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Kurt Felhberg, Project Architect: • Explained that his client, Mr. John Parks, is a firefighter who is on duty this evening and therefore could not be present for this hearing. • Stated that they are taking an old tired house, reducing paving on the property and doing an entire exterior renovation. They are trying to clean up this property and create something of significance. All four sides of the house are articulated. The second story element has been located adjacent to the right property where there is an existing two-story residence. On the other side (left) is a single- story home. • Said that he is looking forward to approval from the Commission. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Kurt Felhberg if he has read the staff report and Arborist's report and is prepared to comply with the recommendations. Mr. Kurt Felhberg: • Replied yes. • Pointed out that site tree protective fencing has been incorporated into the project drawings. • Said that they are ready to go. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 3 • Reminded that his client intends to keep the Elm despite the recommendation by the Arborist to remove it. That tree is considered an asset and not a liability and will be retained unless it is found to pose a greater threat in the future. • Assured that they plan to create a house that looks like it has been there forever. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Kurt Felhberg if he and Mr. Parks have discussed these plans with the neighbor who has raised concerns. Mr. Kurt Felhberg said that he is not sure what her concerns are. Commissioner Kundtz suggested that the project be considerate of her wishes if it makes sense. Mr. Kurt Felhberg assured that they are willing to do anything to make things work faster and smoother. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Kurt Felhberg how many two-story homes are in this area besides the one next door to the project site. Mr. Kurt Felhberg said he is only really aware of the one that is next door. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Kurt Felhberg when that house was built. Mr. Kurt Felhberg said that it appears to have 1970s architecture with a tall massive wall facing this property line. He added that he is not sure how many other two-story homes there are in this neighborhood. He advised that his client had always intended to construct a two story when he bought this property. It is preferable to a sprawling one-story that leaves no rear yard space. Commissioner Hunter asked how large the second story was. Mr. Kurt Felhberg replied 900 square feet. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the main portion of the house is located downstairs. Mr. Kurt Felhberg said yes. Commissioner Cappello asked about the existing driveway and whether anything was going in its place. Mr. Kurt Felhberg said that they would keep that driveway for RV's, boats and/or access to the backyard. They don't intend to take that driveway out as it offers potential useable area. Ms Lori Grove, 18565 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Said that she has only received one notification about this project, the one announcing this meeting. • Said that she is against two-story homes in this neighborhood as there are few on the block. • Pointed out that others in the neighborhood had attempted to get two-story plans approved but were unsuccessful. • Explained that she does not object to this house in particular but it would set a precedent if constructed as a two-story home. Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 4 • Said that she would not like to see atwo-story home on either side of her property. • Stated that these aze big lots and offer privacy. She wants to maintain that. • Pointed out that the two-story homes on this block are old and were built in the 1970s. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Lori Grove how faz she lives from the project site. Ms. Lori Grove said that she lives across the street and over a couple of house. She reiterated that she is not specifically against this design but just the potential trend for two-story homes in the future. There have been no new two-story homes constructed on this block in recent yeazs. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Lori Grove about the noticing received. Ms. Lori Grove explained that she had received only one notice. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Lori Grove when she received that notice. Ms. Lori Grove replied last week or pretty recently. She added that she does, however, travel a lot. Ms. Pat Moreray, 18564 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Said that there aze only three two-story houses on this block. • Added that she is not against owners remodeling houses since the original homes are only about 1,000 squaze feet. The proposed second story here is the size of the original houses. • Advised that her own home is only 1,000 square feet and she has a peaceful and spacious backyazd. Two-story homes would impact privacy in backyards and impact the way the street looks overall. • Pointed out that there are lots of developments elsewhere in Sazatoga with two-story homes. The one lazge two-story home on this block looks out of place. • Reported that at one time she came home from travel to find that her neighbor had put in an apartment on his property. There is no way to mitigate that and not much has been done by the City about it. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Pat Moreray where her home is. Ms. Pat Moreray replied that she is not adjacent but two houses over. Mr. Kurt Felhberg: • Reminded that the zoning allows two-story homes. No special considerations aze being asked for. • Said that this is an old neighborhood and turnover is happening now in this azea. • Cautioned that more two-story homes will be built. This is pure economics due to the cost of land. • Reported that the mass and size of this home is well within standards of other homes built around town. • Assured that the design is sensitive to the adjacent properties. • Asked the Commission to focus on the project's merits and how this home fits in its environment. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 5 • Chair Nagpal asked about noticing. She said that the applicant provides notice templates to adjacent neighbors. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought more than just adjacent neighbors were supposed to be notified. Director John Livingstone clarified that the applicant works with adjacent neighbors at the initial stages and staff sends the official notice prior to public hearing. Commissioner Hunter said that applicants are encouraged to speak with more neighbors. Commissioner Schallop: • Reported that he had lived in this neighborhood for a yeaz and a half and that there are a number of two-story homes in the area. • Suggested that the focus of the Commission should be on this particular property and the design review requirements. • Said that the guidelines take views and privacy impacts into consideration and there are no significant privacy impacts here. • Agreed that the original homes in this area are smaller than the current standazd. • Said he had driven around the neighborhood and found that there have been a tremendous number . of remodels as well as two-story homes. • Added that no only the immediate azea but the entire neighborhood must be evaluated. This is an evolving area. • Said that at a threshold level, he has no objection to a two-story. For this particular property, no specific concerns have been raised. • Expressed support for the staff recommendation. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she agreed with Commissioner Schallop. • Said that there aze several factors to look at including whether this project conforms to design policies and utilizes techniques to minimize bulk. • Stated that this is a neighborhood in transition. • Pointed out that Council has no objection to two-story homes except when one would impact on adjacent neighbors. • Reminded that this is a 50-year-old neighborhood and that upgrades to an older neighborhood will happen. • Said that the two-story element has been located on the side of the property that faces another two- story element on which there are no windows. Therefore, there aze no windows looking into neighboring windows here. • Reminded that such requests must be looked at on an individual case-by-case basis. • Stated that this project meets the criteria and design policies. It avoids interference with views and privacy. It is a nice upgrade. • Expressed her appreciation for the retention of the Siberian Elm. Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he agrees with both Commissioner Schallop and Commissioner Rodgers that this is a neighborhood in transition. • Added that he likes the fact that all the trees are being retained and pointed out that trees do a lot to eliminate privacy impacts from atwo-story house. • Said that he has no issue with this house and project. Commissioner Hunter: • Recounted that this is the fourth home in this neighborhood that she has reviewed since being on the Commission. • Said that this is a nice neighborhood with large lots. • Advised that she too will support this project. • Said that this is a good second story here, it is small in size and is situated next to a neighbor with an existing two-story. • Stated that this is a considerate project. Chair Nagpal: • Expressed her agreement. • Said that this is a neighborhood in transition. • Assured that each proposed house in the future would also be reviewed for merit against the design guidelines. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #OS-114) to allow the remodel of an existing single-story house, demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a two-story addition and attached two-car garage on property located at 18612 Paseo Lado by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #05-028 (503-19-117) PARMAR, 12975 Paramount Court: -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and attached garage is 6,032 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The project also includes a basement. The lot size is approximately 43,560 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (DEBORAH UNGO-MCCORMICK) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 7 • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for atwo-story single-family residence with basement and three-car garage. The existing two-story residence would be demolished. The new residence is proposed at 6,032 square feet with a maximum height of 26 feet. • Described the property as consisting of 43,560 square feet or about one acre. • Said that the proposed structure is of Mediterranean architectural style and meets setbacks, has varied rooflines, stucco walls, wrought iron railings and wood windows. A material board was provided. • Explained that the driveway accesses off Paramount Court. • Said that the two-story component has varied rooflines which reduces the appearance of bulk for the second story. The profile of the new home is similar to the existing home and would be located in the same approximate footprint. However, the current structure is angled to the street while the new structure will be located more straight to the street. • Stated that the existing swimming pool would be retained with added decking and a spa. • Reported that the Arborist Report inventories 43 Ordinance protected trees, most of which are Oaks. Two trees are proposed for removal, as they are located within the immediate building area. Tree #39 is a multi-trunk Spruce and is located where the new garage is proposed. Tree #23, located to the left side of the house and adjacent to the fireplace, is a 20-inch Coastal Live Oak that is proposed for removal and replacement. The applicant had initially proposed to save this tree but the Arborist has recommended removal due to the declining health of the tree. In five to ten years it would no longer be significant. The recommended replacement for Tree #23 is one 48-inch box tree and is included in the landscape plan. Five 24-inch box trees are proposed in replacement of Tree #39. • Added that a Tree Bond in the amount of $93,330 is required. • Advised that no negative comments were received regarding this project. • Said that a geotechnical report was required due to the plans for a basement. Corresponding conditions have been added to the draft resolution. • Informed that this project can meet the required findings and recommended approval. Commissioner Kundtz asked when the tree bond must be posted. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied before building permits are issued. Commissioner Kundtz said that the proposed stucco appears stark and since this is a large residence he asked the opinion of the other Commissioners about this color. Commissioner Hunter asked the name of the proposed stucco color. Commissioner Kundtz replied La Habra stucco in saddleback. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the texture of the stucco has an impact on the reflectivity. She reminded that this is a secluded property that is not visible from the street. Since the house is so secluded, staff feels that color is not an issue. Commissioner Kundtz thanked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick, saying she has been most helpful. Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Hunter offered the information that a previous owner had placed plastic and rocks beneath the large oak, which cannot be done to an oak. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick assured that the Arborist would include recommendations on how trees should be treated. The applicant has hired a landscape architect. Stated that she is confident that they know what they are doing. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Vijay Parmar, Applicant and Property Owner, 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga: • Introduced his wife, Hira. • Said that they do not have much to add but that they are available for any questions. • Informed that they have lived in Pleasanton for seven years and that he works at Intel. His wife's brother moved to Cupertino. They themselves want a community with a good high school for their son. • Stated that they are very happy with these plans and are willing to satisfy any concerns. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that this project is lovely and that she has no problem with the proposed color. • Stated that with the consideration of the trees, the applicants should have the opportunity to go ahead with their plans. Chair Nagpal: • Said that she appreciated the time spent on site yesterday. • Said that this is a nice design. • Welcomed the Parmars to Saratoga. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Chair Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #OS-028) to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence on property located at 12975 Paramount Court by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS New Intern -Susan Thomas: Director John Livingstone introduced Intern Susan Thomas who will be working 40 hour weeks during the summer months. She will be making presentations before the Commission at future meetings. Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 9 Development of Cif Owned Property at 19848 Prospect Road: Director John Livingstone advised that City-owned property on Prospect is proposed for subdivision. An initial neighborhood meeting was held and about 15 neighbors attended. Good comments were received. The next process would be to bring this subdivision to the Commission for review. Commissioner Hunter asked Director John Livingstone what is included in this application. Director John Livingstone replied that the General Plan Land Use designation would need to be changed from Public Facilities to Residential. The nine-lot tentative subdivision map would be prepared. The subdivision map would be brought to the Commission for recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declazation and sent onwazd to Council for final action. Commissioner Rodgers asked if an Environmental Impact Report would be prepazed. Director John Livingstone replied that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is planned. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the project would come to the Commission as a Study Session item or Public Hearing item. Chair Nagpal said that the format would be up to the Commission. If a lot of comments were raised at the neighborhood meeting, the proposal may warrant a Study Session. Director John Livingstone advised that the issues raised were more individual questions from nearby owners on issues such as trees and an existing retaining wall. Chair Nagpal asked the Commission if it wanted a Study Session. Commissioner Schallop suggested deferring this decision to the Community Development Director. Commissioner Hunter said that a Study Session might become necessary. Director John Livingstone suggested that a Study Session could be held on site and would allow the Commission to hear directly from the neighbors. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the neighbors' problems have been dealt with. Director John Livingstone replied that no significant problems were raised and that the issues raised could easily be worked out. Commissioner Cappello asked when this project is coming to the Commission. Director John Livingstone replied that July 27`~ would be a good day for the Study Session. Commissioner Kundtz said that he likes to see as much information as possible and would like to have a Study Session. Commissioner Hunter said that she is not going to be available for July 27`h Planning Commission Minutes for June 8, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Schallop said that neither would he. Commissioner Rodgers advised that she is not available on the 27`~ either except by phone. Director John Livingstone said that it appears the Commission may not have a quorum for July 27`~ and asked each Commissioner to forward an email outlining their summer schedule as far as meeting availability. Commissioner Kundtz asked for clarification about what the Gateway Project involves. Director John Livingstone advised that it is a beautification project for the entrance or "gateway" into the City of Saratoga that includes landscaping and special paving and major street improvements. It should be beautiful when completed. Commissioner Hunter advised that CalTrans has funded this project. It is not funded by the City of Saratoga. The area runs from Prospect to the railroad tracks. Director John Livingstone advised that color boards for this Gateway project are available at City Hall as well as on the City's web page. Chair Nagpal asked staff to clarify the date of the joint meeting with Council via email message. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Rodgers advised that she would not be in attendance at the meeting of June 22°d Commissioner Hunter said that since it appears that many Commissioners would be unavailable for the second meeting in July and the first meeting in August is slated for cancellation; the first meeting in August should actually go forward. Director John Livingstone said he would look at the schedule. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. AD iOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 22, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk `9 ~ r Q eoo~ radwr.rouna ~e~wa waodera Nq ~ tili6 v~odti.rb wry aroNt w Mph 500 it d tAto6 Wbodb.nd Wlh- SO AO 18495 Woodbank Way ~~~01 J ~Mtt AiG X509 7/Olt _. w N w E z 's • • Q~D~L~42 .»~: ~~. File No. 04-045,• 18495 Woodbank Way/Chill Property STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 64,904 square feet gross, 49,527 square feet net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9.8% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing grading with a total cut and fill of 946 cubic yards. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 29.9% 3596 Building Footprint 6,108 sq. ft. Driveway 5,010 sq. ft. Patios 2,028 sq. ft. Steps, paths, and landings 980.25 sq. ft. Pool 688 sq. ft. TOTAL 14,814.25 sq. ft. 17,334 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Existing 3,199 sq. ft. New Addition 2,909 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,108 sq. ft. 6,200 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 83 ft. 30 ft. Rear 27 ft. 20 ft. Left Side 50 ft. 20/25 ft. Right Side 100+ ft. 20/25 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages N/A 15 ft. • ~~~~?~~3 File No. 04-045,• 18495 Woodbank Way/Chiu Property PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to add approximately 1,724 square feet to the main level and 1,185 square feet to the lower level of the existing 3,199 square foot two-story house for a total floor area of 6,108 square feet. In addition, a 2,337 square foot basement would be added. Since "the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed six thousand square feet" and the project is over eighteen feet tall, this project is subject to Design Review Approval (MCS15-45.060). The gross lot size is 64,904 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 26 feet. Staff had concerns about the proximity of the drive-thru driveway pad to the lot line, but these concerns have been mollified by increasing the distance from the pad to the lot line to five feet and by the inclusion of additional landscaping in that area. The homes in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. The proposed exterior finish will be stucco in a natural beige color with white trim. The proposed roof consists of blended multicolor lightweight concrete roof tiles. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. • Design Review Findings The ro osed ro'ect is consistent with all the followin Desi Review findin s stated in P P P J g ~ g MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse effect on neighbor's views. The house will be a two-story house that is approximately 26 feet in height. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained or replaced. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project will necessitate the removal of two Mexican Fan Palms, which are in good condition but provide relatively minor value to the site, and nine walnut trees, which are in overall poor condition. These will be replaced with new native trees having an equivalent value. In addition to the three replacement trees recommended by the arborist, applicant will also plant thirry- fourother trees, including ten Douglas firs. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No native or heritage trees will be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The residence is situated in the center of a large lot and is surrounded by existing trees. The project will have varying roof heights, gable projections, arched windows, and numerous arbors that will significantly reduce the perception of bulk. • ~~~~~'~ File No. 04-045,• 18495 Woodbank Way/Chiu Property (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained, in addition to adding thirty- four new trees. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the front elevation of the building and add chazacter and interest to the structure. The house will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots, and within the same zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The house is located where the lot transitions and approximately 946 cubic yazds of cut and fill will be required to accommodate the project. (g) Design policies and techniques The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Parking The Sazatoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing a 525 squaze foot three-caz gazage with open parking provided in the driveway. Trees Eleven trees, which are either in poor condition or add relatively minor value to the site, will be removed and replaced with new native species having an equivalent value. These will be replaced per the azborist's recommendations and an additional thirty-four trees, including ten Douglas firs, will be planted The azborist's report is attached. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application as of the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. GENERAL PIAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the applicant is proposing a significant landscape plan, in addition to maintaining the existing mature trees and landscape, thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height, and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City of Saratoga Notice and Noticing Labels 3. Arborist's Report 4. SCC Fire Department Development Review Comments S. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • U • Attachment 1 • ~n~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.04-045 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chiu;18495 Woodbank Way WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to add approximately 1,724 square feet to the main level and 1,185 square feet to the lower level of the existing 3,199 square foot two-story house for a total floor area of 6,108 square feet. In addition, a 2,337 square foot basement would be added. The gross lot size is 64,904 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and C~ J WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of an addition to an existing single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review Approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse effect on neighbor's views. The house will be a two-story house with a height that is approximately 26 feet. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained or replaced. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project will necessitate the removal of two Mexican Fan Palms, which are in good condition but provide relatively minor value to the site, and nine walnut trees, which are in overall poor condition. These will be replaced with new native trees having an equivalent value. In addition to the three replacement trees recommended by the arborist, applicant will also plant thirty-four other trees, including ten Douglas firs. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No native or heritage trees will be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The residence is situated in the center of a large lot and is surrounded by existing trees. The project will have varying roof heights, gable projections, arched windows, and numerous arbors that will significantly reduce the perception of bulk. ~~:~~~~ (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained, in addition to adding thirty-four new trees. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The house will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots, and within the same zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The house is located where the lot transitions and approximately 946 cubic yards of cut and fill will be required to accommodate the project. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that no trees will be removed without replacement, thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped May 9, 2005, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. 3. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 5. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 6. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 7. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. . 9. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. S ~~:i~~~® 11. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 26 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 13. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. Applicant shall be responsible for all comments from the SCC Fire Department attached). GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 15. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans to ensure that the plans, specifications and details reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits. 16. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel, and concrete. The result of these inspections and the as- built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil-related and/or erosion-related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 19. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22"d day of June 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • Attachment 2 • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 22"d day of June 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the Ciry theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Wednesday. Please check the City web site at www.saratoga.ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 04-045 (397-06-064) -CHID, 18495 Woodbank Way; - Request Design Review Approval to add approximately 2,908 square feet to the existing 3,199 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,108 square feet. The project will also include a 2,337 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 64,904 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 26 feet. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Community Development Director 408.868.1231 f~'~ia D:'~5 I ~S L{ `'l~s l~V 00 ~t .l0crv l e~ w~ ECKHARDT MICHAEL T & MONTOYA BEN E & SUSAN K MARGARET M TRUSTEE 231 PLAZA LA POSADA 233 PLAZA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA LOS GATOS CA 95030-1629 95032-1629 SMITH MARVIN P & JANET L TRUSTEE 237 PLAZA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA 95030-1629 MCCARTHY BARRY F & CAROL L TRUSTEE 243 VIA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 CHASE LEE M & SANDRA J 14800 QUITO RD LOS GATOS CA 95030-1659 BRANDENBURG WARNER O & ANNE S TRUSTEE 136 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-1639 HATANO YOSHIAKI & EIKO 135 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 LANE JEFFREY TRUSTEE 123 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 HESS RANDY M & VIRGINIA T 111 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 SCHARFGLASS IRA C & JAYNE L TRUSTEE 239 PLAZA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA 95030-1629 TSAI WILLIAM W & IRENE TRUSTEE 245 VIA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 WYCKOFF RICHARD C & WENDY C 14810 QUITO RD LOS GATOS CA 95030-1659 BEAN JAMES A & HELEN G TRUSTEE 141 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 KORNITSKY JOHN N & PAMELA R 131 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 BURTON GORDON D & ELIZABETH A 119 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 LEVY HAROLD J & DONNA S 109 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 MCDONALD EMILIA P & SALVADOR O TRUSTEE 14930 QUITO RD LOS GATOS CA 95030-1660 JASZEWSKI GARY M & SUZANNE L 14900 QUITO RD LOS GATOS CA 95032-1660 FRITZ JAMES R JR & JUDITH A TRUSTEE 14920 QUITO RD LOS GATOS CA 95030-1660 WETHERILL EDWARD W TRUSTEE 14680 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6200 ZAMBETTI ELIZABETH E & ROBERT 235 PLAZA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA 95030-1629 HAAS RONALD J & BARBARA A 241 PLAZA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA 95030-1629 ORTIZ MAUREEN 247 VIA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 BENKOSKI STANLEY J TRUSTEE ETAL 124 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 BASSONI RONALD A TRUSTEE 139 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 VAN NIEUWENHUYSE RICK JANNA 127 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 BRIX ROBERT A ETAL 115 VIA DE TESOROS LOS GATOS CA 95032-1638 FONG BEN & MOLLIE E TRUSTEE 14940 QUITO RD LOS GATOS CA 95030-1660 SAPERSTEIN JEFFREY L & TERESA 14910 QUITO RD LOS GATOS CA 95030-1660 ~~~:'~.6 ~ a ~ ~~ ~ wvv~,v~,,~ Jam and Smudge Free PrintfnR Use Awry TEMPLATE 5160® FOX MICHAEL E TRUSTEE 14751 QUITO RD TOGA CA 0-6226 BILGER KEVIN M & MARY 18501 WOODBANK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6251 PETERSON KARL F & LOIS H TRUSTEE 18600 WOODBANK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6252 JOHNSON BRYCE W & JENNIE M TRUSTEE 18583 WOODBANK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6251 DOSCH WILLIAM G & NANCY M TRUSTEE 14673 QUITO RD ~ATOGA CA 0-6226 WII.,LIAMS HERBERT E & MARY J 14691 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6226 BEADLES PATRICIA A & DENNIS TRUSTEE 116 MONTCLAIR RD LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 w~ . ~ vrww.everycom ~ 1.8pQ-GO-AVERY CH1U JOHN C & BARBARA S 18495 WOODBANK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6285 SANCHO JUAN J ' 18611 AMBLESIDE LN ~. ~ SARATOGA CA 95070-6203 ;HILLS RONALD L j 18588 WOODBANK WY `; SARATOGA CA ~ 95070-6252 ,:~ ,,, CHANDRA ASHOK K & MALA ' ~ TRUSTEE 18595 WOODBANK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6251 WILLIAMS HERBERT E & MARY J TRUSTEE i ' ~ 14691 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6226 i YAVROM MICHAEL M & ~ ' LUCILA E TRUSTEE 18530 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6231 WOJNO THOMAS M TRUSTEE ETAL j 112 MONTCLAIR RD ' ~ LOS GATOS CA 95032-1612 ;BROWN TERRENCE E & i ', CAROLE A TRUSTEE ;~ ; 101 MONTCLAIR RD ' LOS GATOS CA ;95032-0000 HOROWTTZ BRUCE G TRUSTEE ETAL 100 MONTCLAIR RD LOS GATOS CA 95032-1612 ROSE PETER L & BARBARA J TRUSTEE 109 MONTCLAIR RD LOS GATOS CA -0000 ON KENTON B & BEATRICE I TRUSTEE 119 MONTCLAIR CT LOS GATOS CA X5032-0000 '. :YOUNG WINSTON A & GENEVIEVE TRUSTEE 111 MONTCLAIR CT LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 ;ROSS JOHN C TRUSTEE ETAL 227 PLAZA LA POSADA i ~ LOS GATOS CA 95030-1629 AVEIYIf®s~6~ BILGER KEVIN M & MARY :18501 WOODBANK WY SARATOGA CA i 95070-6251 VIDANAGE SARATH C 18619 AMBLESIDE LN SARATOGA CA !!.95070-6203 HII,LS RONALD L 18588 WOODBANK WY j SARATOGA CA j 95070-6252 DOSCH WII,LIAM G & NANCY ' ' M TRUSTEE 14673 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA ~ 95070-6226 WII,LIAMS HERBERT E & ~ MARY J 14691 QUITO RD '. ~ ' SARATOGA CA i 95070-6226 ALEXANDER S MOISENCO P O BOX 235 GROVELAND CA I ~' 95321-0235 BARISICH NICHOLAS J 'TRUSTEE ETAL 108 MONTCLAIR RD '' LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 VOLL RICHARD E & SHIRLEY A '~ TRUSTEE 105 MONTCLAIR RD LOS GATOS CA ~ ~,' 95032-1611 KASTLE KARL W & JANET A 1 l5 MONTCLAIR CT ': LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 FIELDS WILLIAM & CATHILYN 229 PLAZA LA POSADA LOS GATOS CA ', 95030-1629 ~~s~+~a non ~ ~Mf1M ~ID llA1SS8l[~IL~ • Attachment 3 • ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 18495 WOODBANK WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: CHID APPLICATION #: 04-045 APN #: 397-06-064 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A • March 15, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~~~~y • David L. Babb}; Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2004 SUMMARY • Twenty-two trees of Ordinance size will be affected by implementation of the proposed design. Eleven trees (#7-12, 14-16, 20 and 21) require removal to accommodate construction of the new driveway and addition. Based on their species and/or condition, their removal is highly appropriate. Replacements equivalent to their appraised value is recommended. Revisions to the proposed grading design beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3 are recommended. The tree protection bond is required to equal 100% of the appraised value of retained trees, which is $32,020. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence at 18495 Woodbank Way, Saratoga This report presents my findings; provides protection measures for retained trees and mitigation for those being removed; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. The attached map was created from the Site Plan (Sheet 1, F.R. Strathdee & Associates, not dated) and identifies each tree's number, location, as well as the recommended locations for protection fencing. Trees #7-9, 11-16, 20 and 21 were not shown on the Site Plan. The locations of trees #8 and 9 were estimated and plotted on the attached map. The locations of all other added trees were derived from those shown on the Topographic Map (Dunbar and Craig, dated 8/18/03). All added locations should not be construed as being surveyed. FINDINGS The proposed project design exposes 22 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential impacts. They include 11 California Black Walnuts (Juglans hindsii), 2 English Walnuts (Juglans regia), 2 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), 1 Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata), 2 Italian Stone Pines (Pinus pinea), 2 Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata) and 2 Mexican Fan Palms (Washingtonia robusta). Chiu Residence, 18495 Woodbank Way, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~~® • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2004 Eleven trees would require removal to accommodate the proposed design. These include seven California Black Walnuts (#7-11, 15 and 16), two English Walnuts (#12 and 14) and two Mexican Fan Palms (#20 and 21). The Walnuts are in overall poor condition and their removal is appropriate. The two Palms provide relatively minor value to the site and their removal is also appropriate. Mitigation should include replacements. Trees #2 and 3 are not in conflict with the design but will be impacted from the proposed grading beneath their canopies. To minimize the impacts, I recommend no soil fill or other grading be designed within 15 feet of their trunks. Trees # 17, 18 and 19 are trees with extremely poor structures. As these trees have no monetary value, fencing is not recommended for their protection (and is not shown on the attached map). There is a tree on the northern, neighboring property between trees #12 and 22. Provided the fence is established as shown on the attached map, impacts to this tree are not expected. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts (galvanized) that are driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. The fencing shall be located precisely as shown on the attached map. It shall be placed at or beyond the outermost canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch) and no further than two feet from the existing driveway edge. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and off unpaved soil beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. The plans shall be revised to show grading no closer than 15 feet from the trunks of trees #2 and 3. All soil fill placed within the fenced area shall occur by hand and not be compacted. A four-foot opening within the protective fencing near these trees can be created during the grading phase for foot traffic only. After grading is complete, the fence must remain closed throughout the construction process. 4. The lower 40 feet (from the gate) of the new driveway (including the siding) should be designed to require no more than six inches of soil excavation rather than the 12 to 18 inches typically required for pavers. The removal of the existing asphalt driveway within this distance must be performed in a manner that does not cause soil excavation. Chiu Residence, 18495 Woodbank Way, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department /~ ~1, n~..yy `.rC1f.~~Rr1 ~ ~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2004 5. A four-inch layer of tree chips should be spread beneath tree # 1's canopy prior to commencing grading. 6. All drainage features and any new underground utilities must be planned outside from beneath a tree's canopy. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. 7. The trunk locations of all inventoried trees shall be shown on the Site Plan. 8. Great caze must be taken to avoid soil fill from falling downhill beneath tree canopies. Where this may occur, the soil should be manually removed within one to two days. 9. Prior to commencing grading activities, the limits of grading shall be staked and reviewed on-site with the grading contractor. 10. From Mazch thru September, 250 gallons of supplemental water shall be supplied to tree # 1 throughout the entire construction process. The water should be supplied every three to four weeks through soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface at approximate mid-canopy. 11. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use neaz trees. 12. The pruning of trees must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 13. The drainage and any landscape plans (planting and irrigation) should be reviewed for tree impacts and approved prior to issuing permits. 14. Lawn or other frequently irrigated material shall not comprise more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree canopy. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be no closer than one-foot from a tree's trunk. 15. Irrigation spray is not recommended beneath the canopies of Oaks and shall come no closer than five feet from the trunks of all other trees. 16. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Irrigation spray shall come no closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. Please note trenches dug for electrical lines should be installed by the same guidelines. Chiu Residence, 18495 Woodbank Way, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2004 • TREE REMOVALS AND REPLACEMENTS The combined value of trees being removed, which is $3,170, shall be replaced with new trees having an equivalent value. This amount is equivalent to two trees of 36-inch box size and one of 24-inch box size. Refer to the replacement tree values and sizes presented on the attached table for alternate replacement sizes and amounts. Acceptable replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggi:~, Blue Oak (Quercus douglasit~, Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesit~ and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $32,020. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`'' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of Site Plan) • Chiu Residence, 18495 Woodbank Way, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department /-~ ~ ' ARBO~RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE .. .~ ~ .. ~ b .. in o ~' b ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ '~ ~ b ~ a ~ $ ~ 1S ~~ '~ ~' ~ o ~ `' c ~'~ ~ ~ TREE A w 'm . v~ '' c ° pq ~ 'b ~ ~ a i '~ a1 ~ 'b ~ ~ U ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ° °' NO. TREE NAME ~ oo ~~ v ~ g ~ g > ~ > =~ a Italian Stowe Pine 1 Pines i»ea 25.5 50 60 100% 75% Good Hi 3 - 55,600 Valley Oak 13.5, 2 emus lobata) 12.5 45 55 100% 50% Good Hi 3 - 57,400 Coast Live Oak 3 ercus a 'olio 20 20 30 75% 25% Fair Moderate 2 - $3,700 Monterey Pine 4 (Pines rodiata) 14 40 30 100% 50% Good Hi 4 - S520 Monterey Pine S (Pim~.s nadiata 20.5 50 45 75% 100% Good Hi 4 - 51,110 California Black Walnut (Ju Ions hindsii 27 35 40 50% 50% Fair Low 4 - $490 California Black Walnut 7 (Ju lmrs hindsii 12 25 30 75% 25% Fair Low - X X $120 California Black Walnut 8 (Ju Ions hindsii 10, 9 30 30 75% 50% Fair Low - X X $160 California Black Walnut 9 (Ju Ions hindsii) 13.5 35 30 75% 50% Fair Low - X X 5170 California Black Walnut 10 (Ju lore hinclsii 24 35 40 75% 50% Fair Low - X $470 California Black Walnut 11 (Ju Ions hindsii 13 15 20 50% 0% Poor Low - X X $0 English Walnut 12 (Ju Ions r+e ') 17 25 1 S 50% 0% Poor Low - X X $0 Italian Stone Pine 13 Pines inea) 19 35 30 100% 100% Good Hi 3 - X $3,900 English Walnut (Juglans regia) 12 20 20 75% 50% Fair Low - X X REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 allon = SISO 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = S13 000 Jab: 1d19S Wi~iwk R'9S ~ Prgar+rlJ~is: C9q ~jS...as. Co+w~rwh) Devdopiwear Delc Prod ~j: Dnid L atly, RCA ~ oj1 9/IS/l061 ~~~A~n24 1 • ARBO~RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE IlWENTORY TABLE ^ 3 3 ~ ~ ~3 ~ .~ ~ v~ ~~ c°~ c ~a ~ ~ " ~, ~~ TREE ~ :~ o ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ a NO. TREE NAME ~' ~ ,.., ~ .• ~ .• California Black Walnut 15 Ju Jana hindsii 20.5 35 35 100% 75% Good Moderate - X X 5990 California Black Walnut 16 Ju Jana hindsii 11.5 25 15 50% 0% Poor Low - X X SO California Black Walnut 17 Ju lans hindsii 12 30 20 SO% 0% Poa~r Low 2 - SO Califonua Black Walnut 18 Ju lane hindsii 16 30 30 50°Yo 0% Poor Low 5 - 50 California Black Walnut 19 Ju /mrs hindsii 29 35 25 50% 09~o Poar L:ow 5 - SO Me~dcan Fan Palm 0 Washin onia robusta 13 15 10 100% l00'/o Good Low - X X S4' Mexican Fan Palm 21 Washin is r+vbusta 13 1 S 10 100% 100% Good Low - X X 5490 Coast Live Oak 22 emus a 'olio 21 40 SO 100% 50% Good Hi 5 - 59,300 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 13 Lloa = 5130 24-inch box =5420 36-inch boa = 51 320 48-inch b~ = SS 000 32-inch box = S7 000 72-inch box = S13 000 ~.-: nns w..~k wQ, s.~.ri. Pi+1..nJly.. Ciq nlsrj. Cam!' ~ ~ Phyav'1 bl: D~ilL B~iir, RCA 2 oj3 3/1S/lIN TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~~ r •-• 0 1r1 a ~_ ~~ .~ _- z Rio _ _ ~ ~' ~ i ,~- r1 i.~ T N Nei~hborin~ Tra • ~ • 1 l \ \.. 18• `~ _~ ~.i ~ ~~ ~ % / ~ i l _ ~ ti's i ~ ~ ~ 19. ~1~'li~ / . ~ ~ ~~ ~ / ~.~.. I .. p J/ ~ , ~~~ / ,0~1 ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ 'r ~. ,_ ~~ . --~' ~~:.i .~ ~ .~ ~ l~ $ 18195 Woo~rJc Wry. ~~p _ ' Prepared By: Brr~Qd.fa~ ~~r 0«on ~r ~~~ ~~ ARBOR RESOURCES ~: M.p bs ban ~eduadvm fine fnd u na w scale. n./.n L..~ a•bde.u.•.~ c....m.a a r•.. c... Crapy Denmaaf ve apposinwte. -.O. M aisf tr fem., ca . s.«# QyB: Much, l3, 2001 rM.. (N%N4A31 ®..f: ~fanw.~rYYkar • Attachment 4 ~~~~~~ r c~ co ,~~. ~~ ~~ ~~ couirre•r ~ wvwc CODE/SEC. FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • wunv.sccfd.org • 04 0498 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER CONTROL NurIeER ~ I,x,,,IS~ 04-045 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS NO. ~ REQUIREMENT iew of a proposed remodel and 2,300 square foot addition to an existing single ily residence. The new total floor area including garage, workshop and ting basement will become approximately 6,881 square feet. ~ppAendix ~c 103.3 as emended try ;MC 6-20.150 .MC 4-25.110 1 Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 2 Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13d and Standard, Detail and Specification SP-6 of this department. 4 Early Wr arning Fire Alarm Svst, em Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall submit to the fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit application, and applicable fee's for review and approval. CUy PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE AppNe~ntlin» DATE PAGE iTG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ F.R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES 3/19/2004 1 of 2 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION OY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- CHN 18495 Woodbank Wy Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, ,~, ~7p Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos. Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~yl~Y •'~6a,U .. cL~ e ~~P pG'~ `' F ~"~ cou•re•r ~ •avice LI FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org 04 0498 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER BLDfi PERMTT NUMBER coNrROLNUMSER ~,,,,,~„~, 04-045 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEQ ~ sNEEr ~ NO. ~ REGUIREMENr 5 A State of Califorrua licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three (3) sets of sprinkler plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. • CMy PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OOCUPANCY CONST.TYPE AppNaMN~nr DATE PAGE iTG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ F.R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES 3/19/2004 2 2 of iECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION ey Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne ,-~ _. r.'~--. SFR- CHN 18495 Woodbank Wy Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Camp6e11, Cupertino, Los Altos. l,rCl~+~ iri `~J Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • • • (n O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~;m ~ ~Pa yF NmAm t~~ ~- Py~ bD Q sag r~ Z ~ <~ O_ N 0 a <~ n Nn COs 2 } ~ // ~. i i I i I I I F I 8 I s j k I F I K I I I I I ~, i ~~ ~~ i ~ ~ 1i~~ ~~ ~ I I I i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,may ,~,,;,~.,.....,. •~ ~ , t ~ ..: ~... .~ ~.. ~ - _. ti r~~ ~ g~~m55 o~ oBQ~ r .~- ' - ~.~ t ? ,,..~, ~ .r•' ~~ ~1 `T~y~ ~~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~~ ~~ / / i ~ I I ~ `~ ~~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~~~~. . ...., i .. ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ p' ---,~\ -. ~' 1L _-- ~C~6ffiNC,E..i~ ..~ ..... i I ~,. ~ a i '4 _-, ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1 . ~~ \ ~I t ~ ' ~ I I i 1 I 1 ; 1 ~ ~l A ~ 1 t ' _ .~~- i ice. _' _ i t _-_ 1 ~ ~' ~ ~-"~~~ • t } Y_, ~ ,,, ~ .... -~ 1 I . ` „~~t. - . ~A 1 ~ 1~ 1 ~ 1 t '~~1-~ {Wa ._ ~- ~-~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, , 4 ;~ ,~ +~ ~~ i I ~ u ~ ; ,_ ,~ , -. ~ . S4' ~,, ~ _...__ , ~, --- ~ - r _. _ _ 1 _. ~ .. ,,.% ~ ,,,. ~./-- ' II I \ ..' - ~ ~ ~~ 1 ;_ r. .. i. , ;I , I ~ ~ _._.. ~ ~ ~ ___ ~- y I \.\ w. ~~i. ~. ~. ~ ~ ~. -- ,~ ~. a '~, ~.~ ~.. \., \`'~.Jt _... _. ~~s~ R -\'?2c _ !~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~~~~~. v~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ g~~ ~~ ~~ ~n ~ ~ ~~~R ~x~.~f ~.~ ~ ~g ~~ I ~ ~ s~~g g~~~ ~~e~ ~ - ~~ 6, gg gg.. Z, y y~ "'YYY ~ m E G ~° ~>~ ~r _ ~~`gvgnMY ~- a ~~ x - pmoEm R O a ~ e-~ y~e Gt mW > c ~~-~~ ~~ ~~~ ~' ~~~~ ~°~ ~~R ~ ~~o~~~o~ z ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ =~o~~~~~ C~ O s&r ~p. p ~~ ~Sg 8~ boo ~F~ o N ~ SB C~IT~P ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ !~~ ~ 9~ ~ ~ f r~1xa a e~ a z.~ I~~ ~.~a ! ma rivy G > ~1 ~ ti a 'o' l~l y O~ ~ ..{ y ~ r~~ ~SmGz 1 ~ y~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~~~~~~~: _c y~y ~~~ ~~ ~ g ~ ~~ ~~m ~tim ~ ~m t" v,m ~ ~~m ~ O n O ~ O ~~7n0 7~ p RR Y ~ o W m m ~ ~ a~p~JO _ ~ ~ , ~'o o~ 9 b ~gy.O ~~~ X~ ~~~ ~ ~yg ~ z o° 4 ~~ c g~ `~ zn ~ a Chi -. ~ F ~y a rw ~~o ~~~ g i ~ 2S K 3 fN U o - ~ ~~ 'n ° 7 -a i ~ ~ ~~ ~ x ~ e [ ~ • ^ CHID RESIDENCE 18495 WOODBANK WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA i I ~, 1 ~ ~' ~ ~: I3 1 , ,I ,, S ~ li I i ~~ ~~ ~ 1~ I ~~ ~I 1 , I'~ ~ 1 r ~; ~ I, ~~ Ii I, z 1^ .^+ ~l ~i,c, oo~~ to [~ ~~A~ v ~--. X N [~ ~~ ~ r-. ~ ~ ~ ~ I r ~ ~a t. F r ~ ~ '"FI ~ / m f"" ~.8°~ i i ~ '/~ a~am~ { ~ rte' ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~, Y ! a P / N J ~ X ~ .. / m A m f~ 0 CHIU RESIDENCE l 18495 WOODHANK 'WAY i I' SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA i CHID RESIDENCE 18495 WOODBANK WAY SARATOOA, CALIFORNIA • ~ • e.: ; a C7 • • --- _°~ -- _- -- ~ --- ~ ___ -~ ~ _ --- - I ~ ~~ ~ _ I---_ __~ ii i >I ~ ~ i I ~°r ~ ~1I ~ ~ 4 -, ~° ill i ~ -- - - 4 -.__ _ _ -;--- --- /,' ~ 'try ~ ~ '~ I ~~ 5/ ~' ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ; I .~ \ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ - ~~ I ,.,, . , ~ ~ ~ ' -------- -- -- --rt ~1 "~`° ~,~ ~ ~. ~I A;, .~~~~ ~ t~_ ~ ~ II~~I i~ , o j ; ~~ ~ I ~ ~ + ~I " ~~ ~~ ~r~l __ ~+,~ - -- - 15 ~ __ ..... { '~ \~ I ~ ~ ~ Ali +"~ n.' ~ lil ~ I __" -} ~! ~ ~~ I • I~yy.~ ~ j ~ ,' ~ i i I I!-1-- ~_.__ +_.---_. ___ J~ I ~ i eil ~~I~~y~~~~~y~~~;;;,,, Naarr I FI ~ , 4 1~~ eewr~ ° I I I ~ '' I~ ~, I I i ~ ~ I I ~ ill I ~I • I I i {~ I ~, ~ ~ ~ ; i '' - -~ ~- - ~ - - i ~ I~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ Ij ii j ~ i ~, I~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i II ' l y I ~ ~ 1 i 1 I '~ li 1 I ~ ~~ i ~ _ _ ~ i I ~ k- t-~- ._ __ .1 - 1 -- - _ - --~ I~ I 1' I ~ I i }-rr t'-~' - ° ~ ,'f {raF + ~" L-___ ~ zrt~ s~__ _- _.. _. -- _ .. I' 111 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN r"~"rzo a' ~ooox cie~ owwwN XS ~C eN~o .. AwTJ... _. $,~~ wewu JW NO. 0~ ~. 4 o. ~Nten .r.r 0 i i~ i ~ ' ~~` M ~( Q .I ~~ a~ ~. ~'A 1~ z ~r r A f 'J ~' *~ ~, ~~ W S i O _S u i 9 y i I ^ i • CHIU RESIDENCE 18495 WOODBANK WAY SARATOOA, CALIFORNIA ~~ I k' p AN 1 7 ~~ it ! ~i -~ a M O i~ ~' k t CH.IU RESIDENCE 18495 WOODBANK WAY SARATOOA, CALIFORNIA ~o~.on • ~. 1 f. 1 t I. 7 1 t I 1 i I 1 'i 'I ~;; a; i " ~! I 0 f i i Q u 0 i~ CHIU RESIDENCE 18495 WOODBANK WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA c 1M ,., ~ , h i I ~ • • • 0 ,'~ : ~ ^ E ~~~~~~ ~~ _ a 0 ' 'o z . 3 3 ' ' F R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE -PLANNING CHIU RESIDENCE 18495 WOODBANK WAY 147 Leslie Drive, San Carlos -California 94070 S A R A T O G A, C A L I F O R N I A Telephone: (650) 637-18?A -Fax: (650) 631-7768 • • C ~ w:,. ~ ~ i i 'I 1 . __ _ . - __ _. _ _ _ ,_._ _ _ a -~ EXISTfNGMA1NLEVELfL00RPLAN 5~ _ ,. ,. _ ~.. -- - ~- - -- KK -- ---_-I /M /!e\:~ //' 1 1, Eli 4 Rlagsf0 w / ~ ~' `~ ,,... r~r. l / ~ ..` .I tl.~, ~. ravlilxas w',~ li I y 'Emrro 3I x3at ~~~ ~ ~~ _, /` •-~ '+( ~ ~ ~ - 1017 ~~ \\'. \ I ~~ r' o \~\ \ \ ~ ~ vxn t=Lr ;ulgR '}* ~~~ ~~,~ ~J.' ~ ~ - I ~,;~ ~ 1 ' ~ ,~,, /~r .1.5,1.>, KSYIt1. 5.) ~~ ~ i\ i I * ' ~aw<m~ wR"w°`a°.¢ nnnrou x ~ t ~ G t•• _ ~I 1 , :_ 25a 15.3- l9/ Ii _. _.. _. a nr~ix. n 1- ~- -_- ,~ r ~ !~,j _ ._ 1 ti 1 i I ~ e zs>zl ars) IONER IEVEt il00R A t11 II i ~ --. 1 ]61 ( C ~ ~ ~ o sn ~ i ~~I I I I ~ i e w '. I I I R 1 ~ I I ill n '. I rota m1 ~ i - I ', i ~ I ' ~ ~ I I a r I . ~ ' I -- a---;~ II ~I 1 1E i I T -{ f l - -- - t ioir M S)i ~ ~ I ~ i li 9 l - I` 1 N 551 I ` ~ 1 I ~ I ' o n ~_~ ~ ~ - i --_-----'t- - I -~ rma mr 1 '~ r LOWER LEVEL F100A PLAN 1 = 1'-0" !8" EkISTiMG GARAGE Ft00R PLAN rB. =1,-0' _~. a Wrz X30 z ,~ Rae ••mu mQ WO< ao~ 30 ~~F ~Qa ,a V~y 5 } ~_ -_ ~ n.--_ > I ~y I '~x }~ L C ~~'4 „ J rnoel I 1 ~ m I a -« ~/ / Io,S __- .... .rte _ - 'I-'_____ - _ __. t.,\~ ~ ' -- I it ~ .~ i I -0 ' " _,; 3/a. i ~~ Z :/ol> Slr i>.x~Srl k J ~a ~' 1 R.Sx 1. f11 __ tiR~ / lArr ~\ I ~ ~ Y~ k' ~ro i 1 . . _ .. a \i\ _I ~ ._ ._ t~ _ ~ s. s~. iu °°rt# I ` ~7.3~4~Iie r } ,q~ I r" ' ~ ~{ rii5 41a "^fk ® Sx.f ~~ 1 ~ f I :/ w fj7 ~,,. ~_ '-- --1 - ---- -- -- ~~ ~ LE9EP LEKI BOOR i i I ' ~ I _ _ ~ L _ ~ 1 ~y I RREA - ~ ..._. ____ ::. I e 1 ~ --~ - ~ - - f tT - ® r. x~, a: au ~--~~~I I I I o n I l '~ I ~~ F r M , I E 0 ] _ _ ~___ ~-- r se 5 r.- ~ - _ -_ -_ - ~i~~~ -~-~~f I o x sw i '. I _ _.. w ; -k+ ~-- y 1 ~ / ° ~ ~ ~I ~ ~. _. I I ~~ pear ~ ~ } cw[eRm K [ [ n ~ ~ SER..,. i - - 513105 x m I 1 [c~u 0 1 1 i~ r sma nr I i ~ li I ~" s 5~. o[ 'i ~ I I ~ 1 ~ 04 t. 1 ! 1 - x-_-~.._-__- I ~ ~ I. ~ we ., - ._.~ _ { _ ..._ _ . a._~.__ . _ ~ ..~_ _~.._ _ _ ..~.. 9 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ,. .. ._ or [w[m • • • a ~~a~ 's ~~ ~~~ •~..~. w a. ~~_. .. ~ I d N. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, $ ~ ~v ~~ ~~ ~ o ~~~~ ~~ _~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ f ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ z p s 7~ ~ ti y~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ I~ 9 ~ ~ ~v i ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ a~ ~q ~ ~e ~~ pq ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~a~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~M ~~ ~ ~~~ ~_~~ ~$~ ~~ 8 j ~~ ~ ~ - ~ 1 ~ ~ o z ~~~a~ ~ ~~ ~_ ~ yN~ D~~ ~;0~1 ! I n \ Cl ~~ ~ ~ K ` ,.« ~ r.au,w ~ ~ -r .~ ~ a ~~~ ~ ~ 5~ Y ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ F ~~~ ~~ ~ l `.~ ~ - ~K ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ k u ~~• ~ ! ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~f ~~ o ~ ~ ~~ ' , ~ CHIU RESIDENCE 18495 WOODBANK WAY SARA TO GA, CALIFORNIA ,~. • • w~'z a Sao z ,~ wza A « -+WU Vi p . woa ao~ a~ ~hF ~~,< xyaG U '~ o, ~~ o.'~'~: I` > ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~y ~~; a LS [s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~m F ~~ ~~ ~ ~ _ °~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~~ ~3~~ ~ ~~~ P ~ SSA ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 78 ~ ~~~~ iib ~~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CQ ~ ~ ~ y~yl yQ~ ~ ,C}, !Y¢~ ~( ~ x'i p 3 ` g < 41 ~ A < F i ~ 5 9 ~1 ~ W zWp m ~2ptlp' U 2 ~ ~ r 'E 1. T S n .. .. .... a~ g~~ 5 4 ~ - _ _ _ tN~\HEE" A ~ /n ~ . ~bo ~ _, ~~ ~ ~ o ~. ` ` 9g U~ \ \ t ~ a~ fl ~ 7. \ _ / mix= =~~x~k' ~ _'~ ` \ \ \ ~x~x ~ ~ x \ x~x= ~ ft \ ~~~"'l~- ~-. 8 ,Y- \ ~~ ~r\., \ + \ \ ~- ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y-- -~ ~ i. - _._. ~_ -~s~--_, ~~ ~~ i' -- - --- - _._.__-_. _'-.vs _ I ~. \ b - ,; - -- -_ - ~-- - ------ JI / I I ~ ~' % ----z~c ~~ _ / t ~ i,.. \ ~ ~ I~ I '~,. ~, y~ w -' -- - -- ~ - -,-- ___ _. -~~ _.---~ oar ~- _ - ~ ~ ~ t ._ ~ _ ~~ _Y ~ -v ~ --- g, __ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~" ~ 4 ,R 5 ~ ~ ~,- I / ~ 4 1 a d ~ ~ I / ~• ~b a» ~ ~~. Y I ~ i I ~ /? I ~ ,' j n a~ Piro <~: ~- a ~ ~ I I• d~ ~' I a ey ~ ~~~~~~~ ~'p '~ _Y ~.. ~ \ „ d _ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~\ \ ,~ ~ u ~~ / ~ I ~ ~ b 5o b L b b 6 n r~ ~ x ~,. { r'" ~ _~~. -~~ ~ ~/ ~~` ter,'. R ' I z `° ,_:- ~ r' ~. ,max,..-"` I~ " ~ ~ ~x~~ FEE I 2 /-F ~~.~~~yy-y -vlY ~, ~.~.yj x_ix~~-' I~~y! R it I 0 ~ ~ $ ~ 3 3 j ~ ~7{ ' / =xI' O ti r I U ~~ ~ I ~ ~~S~~?~a~~~ I II I ~ a~~ F F Iy ~ F F I I I I I a I I 6 6 6 8 8 8 5 6 6 I ~ I I I I I I ~I 1 I ~' I I ~ I I I I I ~ I I nr er~~ss~eo coot/eo/co 'sw~duscco\oosw\~»aVv • • • 0 • • „, ,t.,.s.,,,.s -~_--_-'-_~_- -_- _ ~ya.-. ft~ 1~ V a ~. ~ 1 ~~ ~1 7 ~, i I,1 '~ ~ ItI a~ '~' \ t ~~i ~" Ill i ~~ ~J 1 ` t ' l tirYrrr~y r IrW'ill~i1rYl~r ~+~i~~i ~r~r M ~ a~ ~. ~......1.=,A.. • w i~r.~nr ~~ wwtiY~irY i ~ ,~.,, ~~wwryYr ~~"~~ ~! wblq~Ylpq H~ ~~wl ° .w~pe.n .tw. .r.p.....,,.,, ~~wr ~ rf ll ~ yYWYli~ril Mwwp~.Yr 1 It 1~ ~~~ ` ~y~W ~~ ~ atf s +I ~ `, m t r ~ dt 6C'N LD/,Y~'o ` i tj t111 S J/1 f W )Y7S ~ _~ i ~ ~ ~A ~ lr) ~ Cq e2 ~ i .G ~` 1 Y'~ Vi~y5..~ i s 'a ~ ll) ~ , net , t G P P~' R~ ~ ' ~ ~ ri ~~µs- _I~ ~~yy11~~n'u(.tMooi lJ D A I ~ ~'~ ~;'. ,1~ ~~~,~s ~ u . 1,W 1Y ~~> ti: ~ ~ _ ~ i,r,wtsnr•) r arf . ~ * aFSn . 'gym ,~ ,~ Ski 6 r I /k,~ ..~ 1' - `uet .~ ;A= --y~ ~ 1N(. sl. $?WR U4 ~ ` (cl ~I fry j ' ~ . _ // ' ^ r,1 I _ ~ 1 ', ~' _ _ _ ~ ~,~~~ ~ ~ J ~: ~ ~. p;e b1 ~ I - ti yVS ~~ ~.tfi'Wew ' X45 N _ ~ i ~ ~ I f .may,'. ~ ;f,,;'~ // I s ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ _ S CmKI ~ptf ~~ ~ ~4~P ~_ ~~µ7t1~ ~ ~ / , ~ ~ iPA. ~ ~ / ~~ Iail,G f4~.1. ~ ~ ~. -wa - ~~~ ~ ~~, ~ Vin. ~ ~ N ~ a i 'fie) ~i ~ ~E; ~ ~ ~ / ~~ } ~~ ~ >< r ~ ~1 ~ Fk / ~` / ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ '~1) As.S i y , ~ ~'+ ~ t ~ I 1 ti !, / .~ F~ // / F d/e; 1 / / ~~ ~ / I i, 1 M1 I t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ i I / aYsl~ ~ .~ - ~~ ~ irc~.M /WW.E Y~ ~ /~ ~/ Y 3 a ~ ~ / ~ , / ~ .. _ ~~ _` ~v1016 SUEIILES'. Xwr 6101pA PApowl imnt 1M0 1 / ', rgow rmr mw PoWI ' ) 6tlp SbMln p .n.m.~x CwwlRh. WM anoraaeo tuuawl /~ / ... .. i i -T ~ II ~ ~A:..:..=.:.., ~' ~~ S~W+tl ~IM~ ~ ~': MY~tIW~~hr1Y i•/rq. ~I14~ ~ ~ ~j :n. rM1r"r:rr n-a......rl.r. j ~ .wYm..r~ _ .r ap•trlrr ~ i `n`om.. w°rr.'w p I ~~ ~rwr..r~a rr«~.rr r.ry ~ / i ~Iti dwr~irrw I ~ ..r.rsY~.r. .wdl:~..;.~w., I~ iprl yaws y~MF~.. Y~1as~l~ iw j~ . i ~,,.,.ra...~. ... 'o~ 1 ~ nY.m I( w..ul.r.~.wrw f r.nr,tn k w,yruY.~.-..~ ~ , ~:~~_ j ~ rtr ~nr..~a ~ r+o ! rr ~...b..rrw 611~Y~M~11`a' 4 +Ir ~ tQ~1a~ ~o~w~r Y ~8~1 - w rrsse,..~. an® ,~Y..t ......,,,~ ilrlmY YYIxni11- J ~ ~M. ... '. n i.er wmt Jm. - +wop~+M w++ M1 w ~..sa~.ns e, wwq.~..a TwMly NM ~yr~e~ ~~ Iyrl ~nd+trwafr Mrw .t*4r w.u '', .~..1~ ~ r wr+s ~r.rs. 1.,~ r+. ~ k.r+~rY. ~rly~r i/r ~yr.:r~~ w..w1 wW ..et rr ....,,,.,,. Ib WrlaAll~..r.rr. rr..+r W ~M+~-41tY~~1 1T+Idrrr~ /R ~t+~Yi N~Y~I~~1 ~+FY ~V i ...+..w...y` `.~~.`...~rW~~.r` :.'mss nrw.+.Yr...r •Yry~YPplwwY~w(Yyrrtl~ ..~ rr1~M~~r,w YYw~lsrww+rv• iwu ' +Y Yn~Y1M~+1~+rYY1~a~~a Nn Irr w s..IY`w GmM MP,1 M Doll L IM, a...r 9 p ~rM4 _ ~~ e u z 1.2 ~~ ~e: ~< ~_: ~~ is V C { ,m . d d T~ V C 0 T J T v ~9 ~ m9U O 0 a~ a 0 701 A ;'U ~ W t:Y.LL2~ S OS r..=•:. 3~ • • t i~ ; `~I~ 1 ~ ~ Chiu/Yip Rssldance - -----..-...- . ~ L~r-~IAX 18485 WOOdt-enk Way Pianting Pian lANDSCAPING,INC. Saratoga, Ca «~-~ • ~.... • ~~ _.- NO NINN • MN•NINM N,M1N • , i ~I • • .._.___._-_ H. __ ___. ___- I Q ~g I I I 1 ~ _ -LL~^•E ~~{r€ i!C i Y~ _- - - ~ ~ E a, @ ~ ~ != IL ~ ~ ~ i s y - --~ t , ~ ~ ).~ I I N rf~^~~ ~F AdrFl~. z~y ~ ._.__.__ i g ~ iG _. __ ~ ---- -- $ } i ----~ F4 3 P ~~ ~¢ :~ isi ~~ _~ ~ ! ~~~ , i ~N N 0 r 1 ~ ____ ~ ' I ~ v - { >a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~1 ~ Eg ~~ I ~~ I I ~ ~~_.-~ ~_ 1 ~~~ ~ .`'~ Yr ~-- ~, -in._ ~ ~ ~._~ ~^ ~ ~'F i i r e~ ~f a ~a I ie - 7-~- i a ~~ ---- ~I!{Ij A j ~ ~ *~~ ~ 1 (~ ~~~ ~f '1Y $x [ ~~ ~~ e~ ~ ~.. ~ Oar i~ va i ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~_ ---- a --~ - ~ !~ ~ ~ ; I ~* ~; LLd ~~y ~ I KKK fj ~ ~~ ~ a p s 'L 'T F _.. _ _. _. ~h~~ ~~~ __ ~ LQMfAX 18495 Woodtt~nk Way DCtAlIS IANQ$CA4ING,INC: $BrotOQi. C8 ar w. • r~wr • r~r a ~w~rn• r«min.xw . 44./w~ • ~~v ~c" mil i . ~, \: ~: N E ~1 ree s.~ 18570 A Prospect Road ooooo~ PRCC~rnoN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04/04<OS 05/09/05 06J08~/OS 06Jb2/OS 06s116/OS The >'is roquest~mg a C.cmditional Use Pcnriit to Establish a rkatal o~+cx in an .off spscx. the 1,200 square foot oommr~+cial spec is loc~tcd is a 20,272 squ~e+e ~Oa~t s~~c~ez. a~g Prospcct Road at ~ ~ of Lawimce Eacp~KSSan~,. of a dcatal oftlcx in the C-N (Ne~hborhhood Casnme~+cial) zoning ~ a Conal Use Permit p~usuant do Socti~m 13-14 030 of the Mun'fde. STAfF R~OMI-~tENDATION Appmav~e the Conditional Usc Pezmit application with editions by adopting the Resolw~ d oo this Staff R,rport. ~; . :r :~• ~~ _, ~, ~, ~ ~..y .,_. r ~._ _. r, ~g ~, •. File No. OS-128;18570 Prospect Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: C-N, Neighborhood Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 20,272 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: No exterior changes are proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). • • Q~~~~ File No. OS-128;18570 Prospect Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The 1,200 square foot tenant space is situated in an 11-unit, 20,272 square foot commercial building that includes a restaurant, a nail salon, and a fitness center as tenants. The dental office has 3 employees and is open on weekdays and on Saturdays. The Municipal Code encourages a variety of uses within the commercial zone "to provide opportunities for retail stores, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other" and "to promote stable, attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the Ciry" (MCS 15- 19.010). This tenant would be the only dental office in the shopping center, and Planning Staff would discourage any additional medical or dental offices at this location, thereby promoting the desired mixture of establishments. Dental Office as a Conditionally Permitted Use Establishing a dental office in the C-N zoning district requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to 15-19.030 of the Municipal Code. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. In order to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the following findings need to be made in the affirmative: • The dental office meets the ob'ectives of the Sarato a General Plan and the Sarato a J g g Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses and will be conveniently located to provide a service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities; and • The dental office will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and • The dental office will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Parkingand Circz~lation Pursuant to Section 15-35.030(1), the required number of spaces for a dental office is one space/200 square feet. The retail-parking requirement is identical; thus, using this site for a dental office rather than a retail facihry requires no additional parking. Staff has also surveyed the parking area during the business day and evening and found that there is adequate parking available. Q~~~~ File No. OS-128;18570 Prospect Road Economic Development Analysis The dental office will increase the number of people who frequent the small shopping center and will be beneficial to all businesses located in the center. The existing tenants and center managers feel that this addition promotes the balance of afamily-oriented center. This mix of tenants offers a complimentary blend of services, which will be maintained by prohibiting any additional food spaces or medical or dental offices within the center. Providing dental services within a shopping center has the potential to reduce neighborhood traffic. Residents can combine their dental appointments with other tasks, such as getting haircuts, purchasing eyeglasses, or dining out, all within a pleasant and walkable environment. While children receive their dental check-ups, parents can exercise, get coffee, or purchase take-out food for dinner. Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sunday: No appointments Staff has not placed a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation to those stated above to allow the owner greater flexibility for any future adjustments to the hours of operation. Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. The existing tenants and center managers are very supportive of the new dental office. Conclusion Staff feels that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City of Saratoga Notice and Noticing Labels 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" ~~~~~~ • Attachment 1 • ~~fi~~Q6 File No. OS-128;18570 Prospect Road RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 05-128 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Dr. Florence Phuong Ngo, DDS/Filizelti;18570 A Prospect Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dental office in an existing tenant space; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: 'ectives of the Sarato a General Plan and the Sarato a • The dental office meets the obi g g Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses, and will be conveniently located to provide a service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities; and • The dental office will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minim~e potential impacts; and • The dental office will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: Q~~~~~ Fffe No. 05-128;18570 Prospect Road PLANNING The dental office shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit "A°. 2. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga within two weeks from the date of project approval. 5. The applicant shall apply to the city for a sign permit in conformance with the shopping center approved sign program. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • 6. The applicant shall comply with all fire protection requirements that arise as part of the Tenant Occupancy process. CITY ATTORNEY 7. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. • Q'~+ X4'8 File No. 05-128;18570 Prospect Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of June 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~~~9 Attachment 2 • ~~~~~~~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 22"d day of June 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Wednesday. Please check the City web site at www.saratoga.ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 05-128 (386-10-043) FILIZELTI,18570 "A" Prospect Road; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Dental Office in an existing tenant space located in a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Community Development Director 408.868.1231 • ~~ boc U f r o5~-~- COCHRANE, DONALD A & PAMELA L Or Current Owner APN 37826014 21975 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6551 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38136014 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL 230 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38136023 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL 230 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 Or Current Owner APN 38610004 ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE-5 HH KATO, YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38610033 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE CA 95129 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF QUITO PARK Or Current Owner APN 38610040 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 Or Current Owner APN 38610044 Or Current Owner APN 38610049 ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE-5 KK RUSSO, RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38623039 PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE CA 95160-1057 CROSS, ROGER L & JEAN C. Or Current Owner APN 38623048 18670 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 NOON, LAWRENCE B Or Current Owner APN 37826015 P 0 BOX 1293 CUPERTINO CA 95015 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38136016 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL 230 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38136025 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL 230 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 PATRICK, EDWARD H SR & VIRGINIA E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 38610006 645 E MISSOURI AV PHOENIX AZ 85012-1369 KATO, YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38610036 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE CA 95129 MALONE, W B & MARY Or Current Owner APN 38610041 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 Or Current Owner APN 38610045 DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC Or Current Owner APN 38610055 PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE CA 95108-0969 CHO, TIK-FAI & TERESA M Or Current Owner APN 38623046 12336 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 MATISON, ROBERT C & MARY L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 38623049 18668 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL ETAL ' Or Current Owner APN 38136012 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL 23~ SANTA CLARA CA 95050 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38136018 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL 230 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38136026 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL 230 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 SEGALL, JOHN B & REVA A TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 38610007 456 CORNELL AV SAN MATED CA 94402-2204 CAMPBELL UNIONS D Or Current Owner APN 38610038 SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 RUSSO, RAY. A SR TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38610043 20380 TOWN CENTER LN 170 CUPERTINO CA 95014 Or Current Owner APN 38610046 SARATOGA AV BAPTIST CHURCH Or Current Owner APN 38610056 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 DESAI, GTTA & ANIL Or Current Owner APN 38623047 12324 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 PHILLIPS, STEVEN M & JYH~ HUA S Or Current Owner APN 38623050 18656 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 Qd~~12 ' ~ 1S ~ b d` l.~ r ~ v ~~ c.. ~ ~ • MHO, HAE CHON & JOONG SIM Or Current Owner APN 38623051 18651 SAN PALO CT TOGA CA 95070-3531 YEE, ALBAN & ANGELA Or Current Owner APN 38623054 19746 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4467 RUSSO, RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38623058 PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE CA 95160-1057 DENNIS, DAVID E & SHARLENE E Or Current Owner APN 38661022 18735 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3562 ANDRES, RODRIGO T & JULITA D TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 38661025 18759 CABERNET DR TOGA CA 95070-3562 • RASTEGAR-PANAH, MOHSSEN ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38623052 18663 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 BECKER, DARYL V Or Current Owner APN 38623055 18699 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 WIENER, CHARLES & PHYLLIS H TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 38661020 18728 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3561 LE, TOAN P & NICOLETTE Or Current Owner APN 38661023 18743 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3562 LIOU, JIANN-HWA & CHUN-PA Or Current Owner APN 38661026 18767 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3562 HOLLOWAY, GARRY L & MISTY M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner APN 38623053 1500 EL OSO DR SAN JOSE CA 95129 LOOS, DUANE E & LISA A Or Current Owner APN 38623056 18711 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 UELMEN, MARTHA A & GERALD F TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 38661021 18727 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3562 FAI, WILLIAM S & DOLLY I Or Current Owner APN 38661024 18751 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3562 ~ ~.5 bo~C /.~ 9" r v~y~. c. ~ T • Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Bay Area Air Quality Management 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Santa Clara County Fire Department 14700 Winchester Blvd. Los Gatos, CA 95030 West Valley Sanitation District Attn: Jonathan Lee 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Pacific Gas and Electric San Jose Land Rights Office 111 Almaden Blvd. Room 814 San Jose , CA 95115 Darren McBain City of San Jose Planning Dept. 801 N. First Street, Room 400 San Jose, CA 95110 San Jose Water Company 1221 South Bascom Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 Campbell Union School District 155 North Third Street Campbell, CA 95008 Bill Lee County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110-1302 • • • • o s +o• so• Florence Ngo DDS °~ ~~~~° Karl Shultz A I A Architect , 18570 Prospect Road ~ +n'-+'-~' . . . 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 209 A ~ . 4 Saratoga, CA Fremont CA 94538 «k ae+, Ph: S 10-796-7801 Fax: 510-796-5434 t