Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2006 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMINIISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 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 TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2~~6 I ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #06-092 HANEY 13397 Sousa Lane 2. Application #06-351 FANG 18480 Prospect Road 3. Application #06-314 SABELLA 21771 Congress Hall The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members.. The committee conducts site visits to properties that 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 that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project: The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is afact-finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed •~ project. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION . STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 24, 2006, 5:30 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 18, 2006. STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. Prepare joint meeting with City Council. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission. No decisions will be made at this meeting. . ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Susie NTagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2006 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 law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning.Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 18, 2006. 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, 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 #06-314 (503-75-017) SABELLA, 21771 Congress Hall; -The applicant requests an exemption to fence requirements enclosure of an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. in Hillside Residential Districts to allow for construction of 6-foot high fence, consisting of-both chain hnk and tubular steel, enclosing approximately 11-,251 sq. ft. of the-rear yard. The lot size is 48,447 square-feet and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). (Therese Schmidt) 2. APPLICATION #06-351 (386-10-007) FANG, 18480 Prospect Road; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Dental Office in an existing tenant space located in a • Commercial Neighborhood Zoning District. (Suzanne Thomas) 3. APPLICATION #06-092 (389-46-006) IIANEY, 13397 Sousa Lane; -Staff has denied a tree removal request from the applicant to remove one deodar cedar tree on the subject property. The applicant is appealing StafFs denial to the Planning Commission. (Kate Bear) DIRECTORS ITEM: - None COMMISSION ITEMS: - None COMMUNICATIONS: - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING: - Wednesday, June 14, 2006 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 City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. . Notification 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda:, I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on May 18, 2006 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13.777 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~a. ca. us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address- to plannin~(a~saratoga.ca.us • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of April 26, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 26, 2006, were adopted with a correction to page 8. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Kundtz abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 4, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers 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). CONSENT CALENDAR . There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #04-210 (510-03-004) MICHAELS, 15230 Pepper Lane: -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence with an attached. garage and a basement, and a secondary unit. The project includes demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence, basement and garage is 6,260 square feet and the total floor area of the secondary unit is 626 square feet square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 52,453 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: • Reminded that this Design Review application was continued from the meeting of April 26, 2006, due to a noticing error. • Explained that the staff report is the same as that of the last meeting with no changes. • Described the proposal for atwo-story, single-family residence including basement and 626 square foot secondary dwelling unit. The main residence consists of 6,260 square feet including a portion of the garage that is at the same level as the basement but for which the square footage is counted. • Said that the maximum height is 26 feet, 19 feet for the second unit. • Advised that the lot consists of 52,453 square feet. • Said that the existing two-story residence, detached garage and two small sheds are all to be demolished. • Reported that the original design submitted had bulk and mass issues. Staff worked with the applicant who came back with a more compatible design. • Explained that this home consists of a terraced design that incorporates French eclectic architecture. • Described the area as consisting of custom single and two-story homes. • Said that the second unit is compatible in style and material to the primary residence. The applicant is receiving aone-time 10 percent increase in square footage with the deed restriction that designates this unit as aloes-income unit. • Reported that there are 38 Ordinance protected trees, 26 of them on adjacent properties that must be protected from construction impacts. The Arborist prepared a report and eight trees were deemed as appropriate for removal.. The landscape plan includes front yard landscaping that must be installed prior to final occupancy. • Reiterated that this neighborhood consists of a mix of one and two-story homes and that this proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and results in minimal interference with views and/or privacy. There are no windows on the second story facing the side neighbors. Although there is a balcony, there is mature .landscaping that offers screening. • Advised that the applicant provided notification forms to the neighbors and that no concerns or opposition was received. • Stated that geotechnical clearance was granted. • Recommended approval and distributed a color rendering and color board. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 3 Commissioner Cappello asked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick what trees specifically would be removed as identified by number. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied Trees 3, 11, 12, 13, 31 and 7. While the Arborist approved Tree 42 (Cypress) for removal, the applicant wants to retain that tree. Commissioner Hunter questioned the proposed blue the roof. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the applicant could better discuss their proposed roofing material. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect: • Explained that he is the second architect on this project, a project that started in 2003. • Said that the house was completely redesigned and that the second story is hidden from the street. • Assured that the roofing is not blue but rather a dark grey slate. Commissioner Nagpal questioned the colors depicted on the color board. • Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick distributed a revised color board. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that he was available for any questions. Commissioner Kundtz said that the colors depicted seem extremely bold and asked how toned down they might be. He said that the slate roof does look blue and that the window trim looks gold instead of tan. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that the roofing is not intended to be blue nor is the trim intended to be gold but rather tan. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out the wrought iron railings that are depicted on page 5 of the plans but not included on the color elevation. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that the railings are used near the French doors as well as for the light well for the basement. Commissioner Zhao pointed out that the second dwelling unit does not have the same curve as the main structure as depicted on plan sheets 6 and 8. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that the second unit is much lower and does not include the arches. He assured that he is happy to modify colors with staff as necessary. • Commissioner Kundtz explained that it is difficult to tell actual colors proposed with this color board but that the Commission can rely on the narrative versus the color board. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 4 Ms. Julie Michaels, Property Owner and Applicant: • Described the main body color as being a neutral cement color. • Said that the trim color is lighter than cement. • Added that the roof is dark charcoal. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal: • Advised that her initial big concern was color but that the applicant has adequately addressed that concern. • Said that she appreciates the differences between the original design submittal and the current design. • Stated that staff can oversee the final color choices. Commissioner Cappello: • Agreed with Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that all the findings can be made. • Said that he originally had concerns about trees but can now support this project. Director John Livingstone advised that the project plans state the specific colors. • Commissioner Nagpal asked Director Livingstone whether staff enforces final colors • against color boards or plans. Director John Livingstone replied color chips. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer pointed out that the Resolution specifies Exhibit A, which are the plans. Chair Rodgers pointed out that the date of the plans is different than indicated in the Resolution, which should be corrected. Commissioner Hunter said that-this is a lovely project and wished the applicant good luck. Commissioner Kundtz said that he had nothing more to add and said that Mrs. Michael has assured him that colors would be carefully selected. Commissioner Hlava agreed. Commissioner Zhao said that she supports this project and likes this house design. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval (Application #04-210) to allow the construction of a two- • story, single-family residence with an attached garage, a basement and a secondary unit, on property located at 15230 Pepper Lane, with the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 5 correction to depict approved plans dated April 12, 2006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #05-035 (517-08-026 BARATTA-LORTON, 20626 Komina Avenue: -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence, including a basement and attached garage. The existing house was damaged by fire and will be demolished. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 2,706 square feet. The. maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 7,817.6 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (Deborah Ungo-McCormick) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that this item was also continued from the April 26th meeting to allow proper mail notification. • • Said that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence with basement and attached garage. The total square footage is 2,705.9 not counting the basement. The maximum height is 26 feet. The lot is 7,818 square feet. • Reported that the previous two-story residence was demolished on April 3, 2006. It was a circa 1900 structure that was destroyed by fire in 2004. • Advised that a Historic Evaluation Report was required after a first fire.. Then a second fire struck. • Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this Historic Evaluation Report on January 14, 2006. The HPC recommended the adoption of the report and approved the demolition of the structure. The home was subsequently demolished. • Informed that there are four Ordinance-protected trees on this property. One off-site 52- inch diameter Oak tree has its drip line on this site. • Described the proposed architectural style as eclectic Colonial Revival and Tudor. The dominant style is Tudor including cross gables, hipped roof and use of stucco. • Said that the project's compatibility with the adjacent homes needs to be looked at. This residential area is near the Downtown. The area consists of varied architectural styles and ages of structures. Some homes are early 20th century and some are newer construction. Adjacent homes include some two-story. • Explained that this is a corner lot with two different eras of construction on each street, Komina and Oak. It is a narrow lot. • Reported that corner to#s have greater setbacks required under the Zoning Ordinance. The original house encroached on the current Code setbacks. The replacement home must comply with current standards. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 6 • Added that there is a formula to determine the setbacks on this non-conforming lot, which results in constraints in the design of the house. This is a tall, skinny, narrow house with most of its frontage on Komina. While 26 feet is the maximum height, it tapers down to a single-story element on Komina. • Said that a color rendering has been prepared. • Advised that several Oak trees are to be retained. • Said that there is minimal interference with views and/or privacy of adjacent owners. • Explained that the design has varied rooflines, different planes and elements along walls to break up-that elevation and to minimize bulk and mass. • Said that some letters from the public have been included in the staff report, others were provided at the site visit and still more tonight. There is opposition to the project due to bulk issues and historic significance. • Said that a Geotechnical report was required and clearance was granted. • Advised that staff finds this project to be consistent with Design Review findings. Commissioner Hlava asked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick if she knows what the original square footage of the house was compared to what is proposed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no. Commissioner Hlava said that the applicant could likely provide that information. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff for clarification that the Design Review guidelines are the only thing this project is being evaluated against not anything about being located within an historic neighborhood. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Advised that there is a distinction between a designated historic resource and what we have here, which is not a designated historic resource. • Said that what is before the Commission tonight is a Design Review application. There are specific Design Review findings that must be addressed by the Planning Commission. There is no language in those findings regarding historic preservation. • Stated that the Commission should focus the design decision on Design Review findings. • Said that the Heritage Preservation Commission did consider the demolition request and approved it in January with the conclusion that this home was not historic. That decision was not appealed and the home was subsequently demolished. A professional historic evaluation was done that was focused on the house and again it was found not to be an historic resource. • Added that evidence of a historic neighborhood cannot be taken into consideration in this house that was deemed not to be historic. • Reiterated that the Commission must apply the standard Design Review findings. • Commissioner Nagpal questioned the eclectic architectural design. She pointed out that the side backs on Oak Street and questioned whether any effort had been made to change that facade. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 7 Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she first saw elements of Tudor architecture and then Colonial Revival. Features included leaded glass windows and louvered shutters. On the other hand, she does not see any elements of a Mediterranean architectural style here. Chair Rodgers reminded that the resource book cited by staff is also cited in the Code itself as the appropriate architectural reference resource. Commissioner Hunter said that there is no inkling from the report that this home is located within an historic area. She asked staff if this is not, in fact, an historic area? She added that the Heritage Preservation Commission only looked at the demolition of the old structure and did not look at the proposed new structure. Director John Livingstone said that she is correct. The City does have a generic designation as an historic area. Also, the Heritage Preservation Commission did not act Design Review on the new house, as it was not within their purview to do so. HPB was charged with evaluating only the historic value of the original structure. Commissioner Hunter said that in the past when an historic home was to be torn down it was rebuilt in the original architectural style, such as Victorian, etc. She pointed out that there are no Tudor homes nearby. • Director John Livingstone said that he was not aware of a policy of that nature. Commissioner Hunter said that she knows that from being involved in the community for so long now. Commissioner Nagpal asked how Landmark #435 translates to the homes in this area. It appears staff is saying it does not but rather this project simply falls under the standard Design Review criteria. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Reminded that the house was evaluated to see if it should be designated historic. It was found not to be historic and demolition of the structure was allowed. • Advised that if the house had been designated historic, it would have had to be replaced in historic style. • Added that demolition of designated historic structures is usually discouraged. Commissioner Nagpal asked what Landmark #435 designation means. Is it an area? This street? Director John Livingstone replied that staff researched it and found nothing specific. It simply identifies Saratoga as a historic landmark. He reiterated that the review of this particular application must be based upon issues such as bulk, privacy and the Design Review guidelines. Commissioner Cappello sought clarification that this historic designation is not specific but more so general of Saratoga overall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 8 Director John Livingstone replied that the focus is mainly the Downtown area and not specific for just a street or just the Village. Commissioner Cappello restated that the bottom line appears to be that the Design Review findings are what the Commission has to use to evaluate this project and that this proposal is nothing different from the previous project. Director John Livingstone reiterated that issues of privacy, appearance and compatibility could be considered. Commissioner Hlava: • Pointed out the numerous letters expressing concern over this project and its historic impact. • Added that lots of people are saying that a mistake was made in not including this house on the Historic Resources Inventory. • Reported that she called a friend who was involved in the original inventory. That friend advised her that this house had so changed over the years. • Advised that her friend assured her that it was not an oversight that this house was not included on the Inventory. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. • • Ms. Cindy Brozicevic, Project Designer: • Stated that she is very familiar with this neighborhood and area. • Described it as a traditional neighborhood. • Listed three key issues with this proposal, Zoning, bulk and compatibility. The questions she worked through included how to retain the existing structure, how to meet her client's needs and how to meet the Zoning Ordinance. • Reported that the original structure was non-conforming and required a more than fifty percent rebuild. • Said that reduction of bulk was considered. • Added that the context of being on this prominent corner in Saratoga was also important. • Pointed out that there are apartments nearby as well as a school and several stucco homes. • Said that one means of reducing appearance of bulk was setting the 80-foot long elevation back 43 feet. This elevation includes the 22-foot long garage. The original structure was 58 feet. While the overall feeling changes the frontage did not actually change too much. • Advised that the original house was 1,300 square feet and what is proposed is 2,700 square feet. • Added that the setbacks have been exceeded. On the first floor, where 15 feet is required, their setback averages at 20 feet. • Said that while the maximum height of the building is at 26 feet, the second half steps down to 24 and then to 15-foot heights. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 9 • Addressing the issue of compatibility, she pointed out that this corner property is at the entrance to two streets with different character. With the original house, it was not clear where the front door was. The new house will have an obvious front entrance on Komina. • Questioned the statement that this home has any Mediterranean influences. A lot of people seem to feel that a stucco home with any arches is automatically categorized as being a Mediterranean style. • Added that this design has a lot of elements from Traditional, Colonial and Tudor architecture. • Opined that tall, thin structures do not equate well with the Mediterranean architectural style. • Said she is available for any questions. Commissioner Hlava asked for further comparisons between the old and proposed homes. The original home had no garage and had a 1,300 square foot footprint. It was also atwo-story home. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the new home is 2,700 square feet with garage and is also a two-story. Commissioner Hlava asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic how tall the old house was. • Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that it was close to the maximum and was. built high off of the ground. Commissioner Hunter said that a substantial basement is planned and there are huge Oak trees nearby. She asked what steps would be in place for digging so as not to damage tree roots. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic reported that they relocated the building two feet to meet the Arborist's report requirements. Assured that it is very important for them to keep all trees on the lot. Commissioner Hunter asked if the basement would be hand dug. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that any portions where it is required would be hand dug. She added that Kate Bear has also reviewed the Arborists report although she did not prepare it originally. Chair Rodgers asked City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer if he wanted to say anything. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned that any comments made from those in the audience must be made from the podium in order to be included in the record. • Commissioner Nagpal asked if any attempt to reduce the mass at the Oak Street side had been made. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 10 _ Ms. Cindy Brozicevic reminded that the setback is further than required and that any • additional reduction causes loss of square footage in the upstairs bedroom. She advised that the plate height is only seven feet high on the second floor with vaulted ceilings to conceal that from inside while also serving to minimize the appearance of height from outside. Commissioner Zhao said that the elevation on Oak Street seems to be big and overpowering of the porch area. The columns seem skinny. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that they felt these columns were appropriate as they don't want to obstruct the view from the porch with too large of columns. However, this feature could be modified if the Planning Commission wishes. Commissioner Zhao pointed out an area on the elevation that does not appear on the plans. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that this is non-habitable storage space that is accessible only from the garage. This space is there to create a gradual step down from the garage. Commissioner Zhao asked if this square footage is counted against the total allowed. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic replied no. It is not habitable space as it is only five feet tall and a • person cannot comfortably stand in it. Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic if they had considered squaring off the arches. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the arches are used to soften lines of the house. It is the best solution and helps minimize the appearance of bulk and helps tie in the first and second floors. Commissioner Nagpal asked to see the color board Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick distributed the project color board. Mr. Bill Brown, Oak Street Resident: • Stated he is a 30-year resident who has watched this neighborhood change quite a bit. • Advised of a neighborhood meeting that was held recently at which approximately 20 people- participated. • Spoke to the historic aspect of this subject property and assured that this house was historic albeit pretty ugly for years because it was ill kept. • Stated that he had hoped to see this house replicated with a wraparound porch. • Expressed concern that this was one of the last vestiges of real historic value in town and for the erosion in the historic feel of Downtown. • Assured that he is all for this house happening and has no problem with its proposed • size. • Added that he does have a problem with the architecture that appears like a tract house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 11 • Described this proposed home as being amiss-mash of styles including Mission and Tudor. • Said that the original design was more Victorian but this owner did not like that style. • Urged the Commission to reject this design outright or continue this process to -allow neighbor input. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Bill Brown what understated stucco means. Mr. Bill Brown said the rooflines are brought down lower. This house right now has big high walls. Questioned where the big arched windows came from. Commissioner Hunter reminded that Mr. Bill Brown appeared before the Commission before. He elected to put in a basement and lifted his entire house above that new basement. Mr. Bill Brown said that this was a great way to get additional square footage. Ms. Lynne Gurley, Oak Street: • Said that she has been a resident of the area for 37 years. • Stated that this corner house serves as the gateway to our historic section of Oak Street. • Advised that there are many historic homes on this street (Oak) and that it is a special and valued place. • Said that she does not understand the architecture of eclectic Tudor. • Pointed out that there are many charming smaller wooden homes including Craftsman and Victorian architecture. • Cautioned that this home would be an imposing addition to this neighborhood. • Stated her opposition to the proposed size of the new structure. Mr. John Teeter, Oak Street: • Identified himself as a 28-year resident of the area. • Stated that he has compatibility and bulk concerns with this proposal. • Agreed that this is a prominent corner in the neighborhood that serves as the gateway to Oak Street. • Said that what is proposed consists of a very large vertical wall from Oak Street that will not fit in with the subtlety of the other homes in the neighborhood and will change the nature of this street. Mr. John Holt, Oak Street: • Said that he is not concerned with the size of this proposed home but is with the exterior style. • Stated he does not think this home fits into this neighborhood and will not improve the neighborhood at all. • • Said that he would like to see a style that blends with the rest of the homes in this neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 12 Ms.-Jenni Young Taylor, Oak Street: i • Said that she lives in a 136-year-old house that has been in her family for 42 years. • Gave an overview of the history of the area and this subject house. • Said that this home had a lovely and historic past before its recent neglect. • Said that the porch is probably from the 1920's with the brick perhaps being newer than that. • Stated that Oak Street in its entirety is historic. • Called this proposal an overbearing design that is a gaudy and out of place mansion that is a disgrace. • Opined that the historic review performed was based upon inadequate and erroneous information and that a failure occurred here. • Suggested this request be denied and that the applicant be demanded to provide an historically correct design. • Urged the Commission to think of the consequences and to stop this outrageous ostentatious folly. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Jenni Young Taylor for more information on the historic nature of this home and porch. Ms. Jenni Young Taylor: • Reported that the home was part of Saratoga's first church community, the Congregational Church. The house was moved from its original location to this site. • The home was owned and lived in by an important pioneer. • Said that this house burned twice. • Pointed out that the 1993 Inventory left out lots of important things. It has lots of mistakes and needs to be corrected and updated. • Stated that the -porch was original when the house was built or soon thereafter. The World War II part is simply the brick veneer added to the porch at that time. • Reiterated that this house was built as a farmer's farmhouse and later moved on this property. Chair Rodgers thanked Ms. Jenni Young Taylor for her historic overview. Mr. Ray Persico, 6t" Street: • Stated his concern that this proposed home does not fit in and/or does not compliment the character of this neighborhood. • Said that it would appear like a massive piece on Oak that is out of character, • Expressed his hope that this request not be approved tonight so that more work can be done on the design so that all will be happy with the final design. Ms. Sue Persico, 6t" Street: • Advised that she too is opposed to this proposed design as it is not in keeping with this neighborhood. • Added that lots of homes on Oak have wood siding. • • Asked that changes be required before approving this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 13 i Mr. John Hollingsworth, Oak Street: • Stated that he is happy that this house is being replaced as it was an eyesore. • Said that he does not feel that this new design meets the design guidelines but rather represents amiss-mash of architectural styles. • Asked that this project be continued so that the design can be redone to be more consistent with the neighborhood. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. John Hollingsworth if he thinks this home should match materials with Oak or Komina. Mr. John Hollingsworth replied both but particularly Oak Street since there are more different styles on Komina. Ms. Gay Crawford, Aloha: • Advised that she is a 38-year resident of Saratoga. • Thanked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick and the Planning Commission for their work. • Agreed that this project might meet lots of the criteria. • Recounted that she has walked past this house for many years when it was blight. The neighborhood has had hardship with this house for many years. When it burned down, neighbors begged Council #o have the rest removed as it was too sad for the • school and neighborhood to live with the burned out shell. • Stated her disappointment that neither this applicant nor his architect made the effort to attend the recent neighborhood meeting. • Said that it is everyone's desire to make this house the best it can be for that corner. • Added that some people felt that this structure was- historic. • Said that this proposal is too massive and that this is an important corner for this City and that the home should be made to appear less massive. Mr. David Katz, Lomita Avenue: • Stated this his issue is compatibility. • Said that while this house may technically be located on Komina Avenue, it is geographically located on Oak Street, which consists of turn-of-the-century or earlier houses. • Informed that he is a 12-year resident of the area and when he remodeled he made every effort to keep his home compatible with the area. • Stated that he came before the Commission two years ago when he built his Victorian home. • Said that compatibility is part of the ambiance of this area and that this proposed design does not keep up. • Added that while this proposal may meet the guidelines it does not when looked at from the community perspective. . Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. David Katz whether his neighbors attended his hearing when he brought his home to the Commission for review. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 14 Mr. David Katz replied yes, they came to support him. He added that he took his design , plans to his neighbors early in the planning stages. Ms. Megan van Krieken, Lomita Ave: • Advised that she is a 12 to 13-year resident of the area. • Said that she came to this area because of its charm and community feeling. • Added that there has been a renaissance in this neighborhood with a lot of building and investment. However, people take into account the character of the neighborhood when planning improvements. • Said that this site is truly a gateway corner lot. Both sides of this proposed house will be visible from the street. • -Asked that this fact be considered when making decisions. • Suggested the importance of considering the historic perspective versus the letter of the law and help preserve the unique character of this area. • Recommended that a design be developed that better fits into this neighborhood and that is not so bulky. • Stressed that what is proposed does not fit. Commissioner Cappello told Ms. Megan van Krieken that he agrees with her assessment of the unique charm and character of this neighborhood. In pointing out the stucco apartment development across the street, he asked her how this project can be called incompatible while that apartment building is not. . Ms. Megan van Krieken replied that it is an issue of critical mass. They need to downplay that and reinforce the better character of this neighborhood. Mr. Jeff Barco, Komina Avenue: • Informed that his home is located four houses from this corner. • Stressed that this neighborhood is an amazing place. • Pointed out that this is a visible corner where between 200 and 300 cars pass each day as children are brought to the nearby school. • Said that he wants to maintain the charm of this neighborhood and this proposal just does not work. • Said that he wants to reach out and work with this applicant. • Reported that last Thursday (May 4th) he tried to facilitate a meeting between this applicant and the neighbors at an evening meeting at his home. Twenty-five people showed up but neither the applicant nor his architect did. • Stated that this is a showpiece location. • Delivered a petition that has been signed by 52 neighbors asking for more time, perhaps 60 days. • Said that they collectively are asking that this design not be allowed to happen. Take time to pause and think. There is no reason to be rash. Let's do it right. • Assured that this petition is not intended to be a legal document but rather reflects the spirit of 52 people who care. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 15 • Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Jeff Barco what the intention is in a 60-day waiting period. Do they want to talk to the owner and ask for redesign? Do all 52 petitioners want input on the redesign? Mr. Jeff Barco replied all of the above. They want the City to pull back and give everyone 60 days to find a way to make this work. More time is needed. A decision is not needed tonight. He said that this is a reasonable request. Commissioner Nagpal questioned the impacts of a delay on permit streamlining requirements. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Reminded that this evening is a noticed public hearing. • Added that the Planning Commission should be making a decision as a Commission and not taking a time out. • Advised that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the processing of permits in a reasonable time. • Informed that the Commission can consider requiring design modifications if it has concerns with design, bulk and/or privacy impacts. • Said that the .request fora 60-day delay is not what is before this Commission. • Commissioner Hunter pointed out that recently two projects came back before the Commission that had been sent back to the drawing board for redesign. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Commission needs to make any requirement for modification based upon the Commission's Design Review concerns. Chair Rodgers restated that from what the City Attorney is advising this -project should be evaluated by this Commission in order to make some sort of decision. It is up to the Commission to say yes or no to the proposed design. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Commission could elect to ask for redesign if it finds problems with the proposed design. Thereafter, it is up to the applicant to decide if they want to redesign or request a decision for denial that can subsequently be appealed to Council. Mr. Jeff Barco asked if the petition has become a part of the public record. Chair Rodgers replied yes, any item provided to the Commission at public hearing becomes a part of the public record. Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton, Applicant: • Informed that he had originally been told that the neighborhood meeting was set for • May 11 to • Said that he is a 35-year resident of Saratoga. • Reported that his godsons lived in this house before it burned. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 16 • Advised that he interviewed four experienced Saratoga architects before he selected • Cindy to design this home for them. • Said that he considers this to be a Komina Avenue property and Komina homes are about 80 percent stucco. • Stated that he loves this design. • Said that this property serves as a gateway to Komina, not to Oak Street. • Reiterated that this is a beautiful home that he is looking forward to living in together with his godsons. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton about his efforts to discuss his project with his neighbors. Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton said that he hand-carried the notification to each house and provided contact information and an invitation to come see the plans. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton if he implemented any of the suggestions made by neighbors. Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton said that only one neighbor came and he tried to meet her requests. Commissioner Nagpal expressed concern about the 40-foot length of the home that is at • the maximum allowed 26-foot height. She asked if there is not an opportunity to reduce that height. Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton said that height reductions would impact the interior living space and would lose two bedrooms behind that wall. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Rodgers suggested that the Commission discuss this proposal using the Design Review criteria and design guidelines. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that two things said disturb her. • Agreed that she too does not want to see a mistake on this corner and can appreciate that concern. • Said that on the other hand, it seems as if the neighbors are saying that this project should be evaluated by the historic flavor of this neighborhood and to retroactively apply those constraints. • Reminded that it is not easy to get houses through the Design Review process to public hearing. • Added that consideration of historic implications for anon-designated house is not a part of the legal structure of the Design Review process. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 17 • Said that this issue might need further discussion with Council to set up additional Design Review findings to accommodate historic implications. She would be more than happy to see that happen but when this applicant applied, that didn't exist. • Said that the Commission must go back to the basic findings required under Design Review. • Stated that given the size of house, size of lot and shape of this corner lot, it would not be economically feasible to put something smaller on this lot. • Said that she likes the Oak Street facade as it has a friendly look. • Reminded that the school and most houses on Komina are stucco. • Stated that she can make the necessary findings to support this application. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that while this is not a historic neighborhood, the emphasis in Design Review is the concept of compatibility and character. • Stated that he is sensitive to the passion expressed by the neighbors. • Said not much neighbor input appears to have been sought by the applicant. • Opined that this design creates excessive bulk and is not compatible to the neighborhood. • Said he would vote against this design but is open to a delay of the vote. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that she is a former member of the Heritage Preservation Commission who continues to receive the meeting agendas and attend their meetings. • Said that she feels very strongly about this area. • Said that over the past four to five years there has been discussion about making Oak Street a Heritage Lane and stated that Oak Street is very historic. • Urged the neighbors to get together to work on obtaining Historic Lane designation like Austin Lane and Saratoga Avenue. • -Advised that this is her sixth year on the Planning Commission as she is in her second term. • Stated that she has never experienced so many neighbors coming to a hearing to protest a house. Usually two or three show up asking for minor changes. • Expressed appreciation that 52 people cared enough to sign a petition and said that this Commission needs to reflect those neighbors. • Agreed that this is a unique neighborhood. Signing that petition means they care about Saratoga and their neighborhood. • Stated that this proposal either needs to go back to the drawing board or needs to be appealed to Council. It is not appropriate or compatible with its neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal: • Recounted that she comes to every meeting wanting to support staff's recommendations. • Explained that she too came before the Commission as an applicant in the past. A lot of people attended her hearing saying they didn't like her initial proposal. They went back to the drawing board and redesigned their home. • Stated that she wants to be able to-make the findings to support but cannot make Findings D or E in the affirmative. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 18 • Said that it is not a size issue but she does have trouble with the 80-foot long frontage on Komina with 40 feet of that at the maximum 26-foot height. This creates excessive bulk. • Said that she cannot support this design as it stands. • Said that there is an historic aspect to this neighborhood and that compatibility is an issue. • Added that it is not fair to compare this house to the school and apartment. • Assured that she has no problem using stucco. However, something can be built of stucco that is more compatible. • Reiterated that this home appears bulky from Oak Street. Commissioner Zhao: • Agreed that this home does not fit into this neighborhood. • Pointed out that the Oak Street elevation lacks architectural details. The top portion is big. It is too much and overpowers the porch area. • Stated that she too cannot make Findings D and E or support this project as designed. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that his key issue is bulk and the maximum height roofline that runs the length. • Said that this is a home that will have a major contribution to the homes on Oak Street. • Stated that if redesigned, it should be more consistent with the neighborhood. • Said that the architect has done a good job blending architectural styles from two very different streets. • Pointed out that the applicant will have to live next to these neighbors. If they are not happy, he won't be happy either. • Stated that he cannot make Finding D. Chair Rodgers: • Advised that she has lived in neighborhoods with historic characteristics where ways were found to commemorate historic significance. • Said that there is some appropriate way to work with this street. • Added that this issue will likely be discussed with Council at an upcoming joint meeting. • Said that she shares concerns with other Commissioners. • Stated that this is a unique neighborhood that is charming and interesting. There are historic homes of many different styles. • Added that there is a lot of discord here regarding fitting into this neighborhood. While several features proposed do meet styles in the area, we want to keep the character and charm of this historic part of Saratoga intact. • Said that there is a bulk issue. The roofline is long and unaltered along Komina. • Said that she would vote no based upon character and bulk issues as well as an inability to make Findings D and E. Commissioner Cappello asked if the recommendation is to continue consideration or reject this design. Chair Rodgers said that there are options. The applicant can be consulted as to whether he . wants an up or down vote tonight. He could subsequently appeal that decision to Council. Otherwise, this application can be continued to allow redesign and return with revised plans to Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 19 this Commission. She asked Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton for his preference amongst those options. Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton said his preference is for specific guidelines from the Commission as to what he must do to get a design approved. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification from Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton. Does he support a continuance with a request for additional guidance from the Commission? Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton: • Expressed frustration that he followed the City's established guidelines but still his project was found not to be acceptable. • Said he simply wants clear and specific guidelines on what he needs to do in order to move forward. • Said that he can see that any vote would be for denial. • Added that he does not want to have to build his home based upon a commi#tee of neighbors. Commissioner Hlava said it appears Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton does not clearly understand his options. If the project is turned down, he can appeal that decision to Council. Chair Rodgers reiterated that a denial could go to Council on appeal. Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton asked if he is being asked for a complete redesign. Commissioner Cappello: • Said it appears that Mr. Bob Baratta-Lorton may not be interested in a continuance. • Gave suggestions for improvements that include reduction in bulk by finding ways to articulate the roofline and reduce its expanse. • Stated that all required findings are met except for bulk. • Suggested that the project be designed to be more aesthetically compatible to Oak Street. • Said that this is a large structure for the property itself. Commissioner Zhao: • Suggested the use of some sort of wainscoting, stone or brick veneer along the Komina Avenue elevation as the wall is kind of plain of architectural details. • Said that the Oak Street elevation has compatibility, bulk and height issues. It also needs architectural details to make it more interesting. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that the Oak Street elevation is short on architectural details. • City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that compa#ibility is a finding that can be discussed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 20 ~ - Commissioner Nagpal said that it is not one style or another. Commissioner Hlava: • Pointed out that the neighbors are most concerned on the issue of architectural style. • Said that while people should be able to pick the architectural style of the home they want to live in, most take the area they are in into consideration when .selecting an architectural style. • Said. this design needs a more old-fashioned look and a break up of the stucco wall. Commissioner Kundtz said that bulk and compatibility are his two sensitivities. The home should reflect a more rural character. Commissioner Hunter: • Agreed that compatibility and bulk are also her chief concerns with this design. • Said that the problem with the Oak Street elevation is that it is very imposing. • Urged the applicant to do something other than Mediterranean or Tudor, perhaps more of a farmhouse feel. Chair Rodgers: • Said that she has a problem with an eclectic style. • Stated that she does not see Tudor in this design. • Added that the significance of this neighborhood requires a little more sensitivity. • Said that she likes the porch on the Oak Street side but thinks the Oak Street elevation needs to be blended more with a reduction in the bulk of the long straight roofline. Commissioner Zhao pointed out that the chimney is out of proportion. It is too skinny in terms of the design and too tall. Commissioner Hunter agreed with Commissioner Zhao -about the chimney. Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic how she and her client prefer the Commission to proceed this evening. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic: • Asked the Commission if it has a preference between wood and stucco. • Advised that this design cannot be changed easily by simply changing material. • Said that they chose not to detach the garage as a Use Permit would be required to accommodate a detached garage. • Explained that a reduced setback would have to be approved by the Commission from the 10-foot setback required to six-foot setback that could be provided with a detached garage. Director John Livingstone cautioned the Commission to simply provide general direction rather than such a specific issue. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 21 Commissioner Hlava said that the material does not have to be wood. Stucco with trims and things are reflected in the area. Commissioner Kundtz said that use of wood, stucco or a combination is not the solution. What is required is a redesign. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought use of wood was important. She added that stone should not be used at all but that she loves shingle houses. Commissioner Cappello agreed, saying he prefers wood. Commissioner Zhao said that it does not have to be wood but must fit into the style of this neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal stressed that the key is compatibility. She agreed that these changes require a redesign. Chair Rodgers said that the house does not have to be wood but a design with .wood elements is more likely to be supported on the Oak Street side. However, the house does not have to be all wood. Commissioner Nagpal said that Study Sessions have been utilized in the past for such complex or controversial projects. She stressed that everyone wants to see a good project. Chair Rodgers said that she is willing to offer a Study Session. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought a Study Session is in order here and she urged the applicant to consider that option. Chair Rodgers asked staff for its recommendation on the issue of a Study Session. Director John Livingstone said that staff could guide the applicant on the redesign to incorporate the Planning Commission's recommendations. Again, the applicant can ask the Commission to take a vote tonight or can accept a continuance. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that they would prefer a vote and redesign. Chair Rodgers said that they could withdraw this application. Director John Livingstone said that the project could also be denied without prejudice that allows the applicant to bring back the redesigned home. Additionally, a Study Session could be set. i Commissioner Hlava pointed out that if the project is denied, the applicant must pay fees again. If it is continued, the applicant deals with staff and the fees paid are still good. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 22 Ms. Cindy Brozicevic asked the Commission to continue consideration to allow redesign. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of Design Review (Application #05-035) for the construction of atwo-story, single-family residence on property located at 20626 Komina Avenue to allow for redesign of the proposed residence. (7-0) Director John Livingstone advised that staff would renotice the neighbors of the next hearing or Study Session date once scheduled. Chair Rodgers called for a break at 10:00 p.m. Chair Rodgers reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #UP-06-282 (APN 386-60-001) BALASUBRAMANIAN, 12280 Saratoga- • Sunnwale Road: -The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a dental office in an approximately 1,400 square-foot tenant space in the existing office building located at 12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Saratoga Square). The site has a Commercial-Visitor (CV) zoning designation. (Shweta Bhatt) Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dental office in an existing office building. • Informed that a Use Permit is required to establish a medical use in a commercial zoning district. • Described the tenant space as consisting of 1,400 square feet. The space will accommodate four patient areas, a waiting room and office. • Said that staff finds the application appropriate for this location. • Advised that there are three parking areas serving this building. .Staff made several site visits and it appears that parking is adequate to serve this use. • Recommended approval. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Vijay Balasubramanian, Applicant: • Advised that he has nothing to add to the staff report but he is available for any questions. • Informed that his wife, Dr. Arathi R. Tiruvur, is the dentist who will occupy this new dental office. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 23 i Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation to the applicants for still being here at 10:15 p.m. She said she had no comments about this Use Permit. Commissioner Zhao said she had no comments. Commissioner Cappello said this is an appropriate location. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that there is already another dental practice in this building. Chair Rodgers said this is a fine location and wished the applicant good luck. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dental office in an existing office building located at 12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.4 APPLICATION #06-309 (510-06-047) BELL, 19234 Citrus Lane: -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish asingle-story single-family residence and construct a single-story residence with an attached three-car garage and secondary dwelling unit. A swimming pool is also proposed. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 6,598 square- feet including the attached garage and secondary dwelling unit. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 25-feet. The net lot size is 40,205 square- feetand the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing single-story residence and the construction of a new single-story residence with detached garage and secondary dwelling unit. • Explained that Design Review Approval is required for single-story structures over 18 feet in height as well as when a structure totals more than 6,000 square feet. • Explained that this single-story home would reach a maximum height of 25 feet and consists of 6,598 square feet. • Described the architectural style as French Farmhouse. It includes muted earth tones such as dark beige stucco, cream tnm and darker brown shutters. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006- Page 24 • Advised that neighbors were notified and six neighbor responses were received with no concerns raised. • Said that there are eight protected trees of which none are proposed for removal. • Informed that the applicant redesigned the driveway to meet the Arborist request in order to protect a tree. • Added that there is attic space over the garage with 11-foot high ceilings that will be used for storage. A deed restriction will be recorded prohibiting this space from becoming habitable space in the future as to do so would exceed the maximum square footage allowed on a parcel of this size. • .Said that the accessory dwelling unit will be deed restricted as aloes-income unit if ever rented. • Said that a new driveway path includes a hammerhead turnaround. Landscaping will be installed to block any potential headlight impacts on the adjacent neighbor. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the color board depicts both brick and stone. Planner Therese Schmidt said that a mixture of both materials would be used and the applicant has a rendering to demonstrate how. Chair Rodgers asked what would happen to the deed restriction on use of the over-garage attic space in the event that Code changes allow additional square footage on this lot in the future. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied that this deed restriction stays in effect unless it is modified or amended. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Tom Sloan, Project Architect: • Thanked Planner Therese Schmidt for her presentation. • Advised that they had. met with neighbors and all surrounding neighbors are thrilled with this project. • Said he spoke with the neighbor whose home abuts the garage. She has no issues. • Explained that most neighbors are original owners with over 35 years in this neighborhood. Newcomers have been here 23 years. • Stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tom Sloan to explain the use of both brick and stone accents. Mr. Tom Sloan said that they want this house to look historic. They will use a brush and slush installation process for the stone. It is not a neat and precise installation. The brick trim will be used above the upper portions. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 25 • Commissioner Hunter asked .about green construction given -that this is a very large home. Will solar be used at all? Mr. Tom Sloan said that the driveway incorporates pavers. However, no solar is proposed. Not too much credit is given to use of solar. He assured that lots of recycled lumber would be used. Mr. Warren Bell, Property Owner: • Said that this is his first time participating in such a process. • Expressed appreciation for the time spent by the Commission. • Reported that at the advice of his architect, he approached his neighbors early in the process. • Stated he was happy to receive his neighbors' support. • Explained that this house has been the "eyesore" on the street for 35 years. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he loved the design. It is beautiful and maintains the trees on the property. He likes the old style look incorporating stone and brick. • Pointed out that they are tearing everything out except for the tennis court. As a tennis lover, he can appreciate retention of this court. • Wished the owners good luck. Mr. Warren Bell advised that he has been told that-this tennis court was the first one constructed in Saratoga. Commissioner Zhao agreed that this is a nice design that will represent a great addition to this neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. Commissioner Hunter said it is a lovely design. Commissioner Kundtz said he values the sensitivity demonstrated to the neighbors. Commissioner Hlava said this is a big, elegant house that is a real nice addition to this neighborhood. Chair Rodgers agreed that this is a wonderful design and an asset to Saratoga. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner • Hlava, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval (Application #06-309) to allow the construction of a single-story, single-family .residence with an attached garage and a Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 26 secondary dwelling unit on following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None property located at 19234 Citrus Lane, by the Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Commissioner Nagpal extended congratulations to Planner Therese Schmidt for achieving her AICP certification. Planner Therese Schmidt thanked the Commission for their good wishes. She explained that this is an advanced certification available for planners who are able to pass a 150-question test. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #06-235 -The City of Saratoga proposes an amendment to the Saratoga City-Code pertaining to Density Bonuses. California State Government Code Section 65915 mandates a local program to provide density bonuses, .incentives, concessions, waivers and uniform parking standards for development projects that meet certain requirements concerning the inclusion of very low, low, moderate income housing units or senior housing units. This requirement is included in Program 2.1: Density Bonuses and Affordable Housing Requirement of the City's adopted Housing Element which states that the City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law. The proposed Density Bonus amendment is an amendment to Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations of the Saratoga City Code specifying how compliance with Government Code 65915 -and its recently adopted amendments - is implemented in the City of Saratoga. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that staff is recommending a Zoning Text Amendment to comply with a Statewide Density Bonus requirement resulting from State Law. • Said that a density bonus is required for developments providing senior and/or affordable housing units. • Said that this amendment would add a new article to Chapter 15 of City Code. • Explained that a density bonus is only available for multiple family developments that provide affordable (very-low-income and low-income) units. • Said that the highlights of the provision create a range of density bonuses that allow a developer to build additional units than would be allowed under the General Plan Land Use Element. • • • Said that the provision requires the City to grant between one and three incentives that • could be anything from reduced setbacks to reduced provision of parking, etc. The provision limits off-street parking requirements that the City can impose exclusive of guest or handicapped parking. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 27 • Added that unless the applicant asks for a density bonus, one is not implemented. • Reminded that Measure G, which was approved in March 1996, requires voters to approve any amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan -that increases density. • Reported that an Initial Study was prepared and a Notice of Intent published in February. No public comment was received. It was determined that this amendment would not result in any significant impact on the environment. • Recommended that the Commission forward to Council a recommendation to approve this Zoning Text Amendment implementing State Law on the issue of density bonuses. • Assured that any subsequent housing developments would still be subject to environmental review. A density bonus could be denied if it is found that the bonus would create an adverse impact. • Called out technical corrections to the text in Section 15-81.030 A & B, 15-81.030.D.5.E and 15-81.060. • Distributed a handout outlining hypothetical examples on the impacts of the density bonus on sample projects. Director John Livingstone advised that he met with the City Attorney Richard Taylor to review this amendment against Measure G provisions. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Explained that City Attorney Richard Taylor has determined that this Text Amendment is adopting a Zoning Ordinance to meet State Law requiring provision of density bonuses and is not amending the General Plan. Commissioner Hunter asked if this provision would apply to the large Swenson project pending on Quito. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that is under discussion between Richard Taylor and the attorney for Swenson. It has not yet been determined if and/or when that item would go to a vote. Commissioner Hunter asked what impacts this density bonus would have on the Village. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that new projects with more -than five units could avail themselves of the provisions of this density bonus if it provides affordable units. Director John Livingstone added that this is for multi-family residential projects that have a minimum of five units. This would usually involve fairly large sites. Planner Lata Vasudevan added that the project must provide a certain number of very-low or low-income units or senior units. Commissioner Hunter again asked the potential impact on the Village. S Planner Lata Vasudevan cautioned that staff cannot predict development. However, any proposed development would still undergo environmental review and design review. If there Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 28 is any finding(s) that the density bonus would be detrimental to a neighborhood, it can be denied. Director John Livingstone: • Reviewed a couple of hypothetical examples. A 10-unit development with a 10 percent density bonus would get one more unit for a total of 11. Comparably, a large project consisting of 10 acres could equal a density bonus of 22 units. • Assured that the impact is not that significant on small lots in the City. • Added that projects must still meet Design Review and environmental requirements. Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out the list of required findings under Section 15-81.040.5 to support a density bonus. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the impact of the incentives. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that there are between one and three incentives available to chose from based on a sliding scale, based upon the number of affordable units provided and if these units are very-low or low-income units. Chair Rodgers reminded the Commission that this is for multi-family residential projects. Commissioner Hlava asked if developers must apply for a density bonus if they elect not to incorporate affordable units. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. Commissioner Hlava asked if it is up to the Commission or Council to select from the available list of incentives. Director John Livingstone replied no, the developer gets to pick from among the available incentives. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer added that a project would be evaluated to ensure that no adverse traffic or parking impacts result from the incentives. This gives the City some control. The applicant requests what they want and the City evaluates it for the necessary findings to support. Commissioner Hlava asked about an overlay in the Village that requires any residential units to be low-income units. Director John Livingstone said that this is part of the Housing Element. Rental housing can be considered affordable. In commercial areas, mixed-use development would allow rental- housing units to be located over commercial space. Commissioner Hunter asked if the City is being forced to implement this density bonus. • Director John Livingstone replied basically yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 29 Commissioner Hunter said she though the City was four times over its required affordable units. Director John Livingstone explained that the City is short 50 low-income units but is okay on its moderate units. Commissioner Hlava asked about the in-house staff available to evaluate financial pro-formas. Chair Rodgers said that consultants could be obtained at the applicant's cost. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned that the concept of a density bonus is supposed to end up saving the developer money as an incentive for them to provide affordable housing units. Charging for additional consultants may defeat that purpose. Commissioner Hunter said that there is a huge project pending and asked if it is smart to do this amendment at this time. She asked why move so fast. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied that cities are required to meet compliance deadlines. Director John Livingstone advised that Saratoga is already several years behind. S Planner Lata Vasudevan added that the original State Law for density was passed in 1994. Several other cities have already implemented their Ordinance changes to accommodate this requirement. Commissioner Hunter said that more time should be spent on this. It shouldn't be decided at 11 p.m. at night. She said she would like to delay a recommendation to allow further discussion. Commissioner Kundtz said he too cannot support taking action without more information and perhaps a Study Session. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer reminded that State Law states that cities must provide these bonuses. Saratoga will not gain too much by not having its own Ordinance. Director John Livingstone added that even without this amendment being adopted into the Code, any savvy developer can use the provisions of this State Law to request density bonuses. Commissioner Hlava suggested continuing this item to the first meeting in June so that this issue can be taken to the joint session with Council for discussion. She said that while this is State-mandated, -the City may as well adopt something that is palatable to us. The Commission can benefit from discussion with Council. i Chair Rodgers reminded that the intent of State Law is there and the process and/or structure that works for Saratoga must be developed to accommodate or implement that State Law. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 30 - • Commissioner Hunter suggested adding this issue to the Commission's Study Session set for May 24tH Commissioner Nagpal: • Asked staff if anything in this text amendment is different from State Law. • Reminded that the City is still able to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. • Said that she is not as concerned about this text amendment as the other Commissioners appear to be since it is required by the adoption of that State Law. Director John Livingstone agreed that there is very little latitude. Commissioner Cappello said that he is not sure there is a lot we can do that is not already in this amendment. Commissioner Kundtz said that the model can be studied during a Study Session and options can be evaluated to modify this document to better suit us for decision-making. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that any model must be hypothetical. Commissioner Hunter said that she does not yet feel educated enough on this issue to make a decision tonight at this late hour. If forced to vote, she would vote against this tonight. Commissioner Cappello said that it would be good to have a Study Session so the Commission is clear what it is voting on. Commissioner Nagpal asked if another public notice is required. Director John Livingstone said that Study Sessions don't require public noticing. He suggested that he work further with the City Attorney on this matter. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that the public hearing on this matter be opened this evening. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Director John Livingstone asked that the continuance be to a date uncertain. Chair Rodgers pointed out that having the City Attorney address both the Planning Commission and Council together would be most helpful. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration • of a proposed amendment to the Saratoga City Code pertaining to Density Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 31 Bonuses to allow time for further study and information and consultation with Council. (7-0) *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 11:18 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • • Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: • Date: APN: 06-314/21771 Congress Hall Lane Fence Exception Doug and Debra Sabella Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner " May 24, 2006 503-75-017 Department Head ~~Z. John Livingstone, CP, Director ;~"" ii ~~__ i ~ i~{ ~; ____ .r --- ~.~ .~~/ / ® 21771 trmOress Hall Lane Q Buffer Zone - Rope~ties w iUiYt 500 ft. - Street_Labels ,n•' Streets ..c ~ `_~_ -~ 0 I 100 21771 Congress Hall Lane i =~ Application No. 06-314; 21771 Congress Hall Lane/Sabella EXECUTIVE SUNIMARY . CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 04/24/06 Application complete: 05/01/06 Notice published: 05/10/06 Mailing completed: ~ 05/10/06 Posting completed: 05/18/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests an exception to fence requirements prohibiting enclosure of an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. in Hillside Residential Districts to allow for construction of 5-foot high tubular steel fence, enclosing approximately 8,651 sq. ft. of the rear yard. The lot size is 48,447 square-feet and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the application for a Fence Exception with required findings by adopting the attached Resolution. 2 Application No. 06-314; 21771 Congress Hall Lane/Sabella STAFF ANALYSIS . ZONING: Hillside Residential (HR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside Conservation) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,296 Sq. Ft. GRADING REQUIRED: None Proposed PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Fence Coverage: 8,651 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED (17% of the lot) Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 90 ft. 0 ft. - Rear 62 ft. - 4 in. 0 ft. Side (E) 7 ft. - 2 in. 0 ft. Side (VV) 18 ft. -1 in. 0 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Proposed Fence ~ 5 - ft. 6 ft. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is not subject to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b) (5), "This division does not apply to any of the following activities: Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." PROJECT DISCUSSION Zoning Code Section 15-29.020(c) requires approval of a Fence Exception by the Planning Commission for construction of a fence enclosing an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. The applicant requests a Fence Exception Approval to construct a fence which would enclose approximately 8,651 sq. ft. of the reaz yazd. The applicant currently has approval to construct a 5-ft. tall tubulaz steel fence along the perimeter of an above ground pool, which is in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated that they aze concerned that the fence may not be adequate to keep small children in or out of the structure. In addition, because the pool is above ground they are concerned with the visual impact of the fence, which will actually be in excess of 5-feet in several locations due to topography. 3 Application No. 06-314; 21771 Congress Hall Lane/Sabella Staff has indicated that the applicant may extend the height of the fence above 5-ft. in instances where the applicant is concerned with a child's safety. While the approved fence would be highly visible and may exceed 5-feet in height in certain portions because of the topography of the site, it would have greater set-backs from the property lines than the current proposal and would be screened from Congress Hall Lane by the house. The applicant initially proposed a fence consisting of both tubular steel and chainlink enclosing an 11,251 sq. ft. area. Staff informed the applicant that chainlink is not an approved fencing material in the hillside zoning district. Staff also informed the applicant that they would be unable to make the appropriate findings to recommend approval of the request. The applicant redesigned the proposal by changing the proposed material to tubular steel throughout the project and has reduced the area enclosed to 8,651 sq. ft. Staff is still unable to make the appropriate findings to recommend approval of this proposal. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has circulated the City's Neighbor Notification Form and has received one response, which has not expressed any issues or concerns. Trees The proposed project will not impact any protected trees. Consistency with the City's General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan The proposed project is not consistent with the following Goals and- Policies of the City's General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed fence would create an additional visual impact to the rural hillside and does not protect the existing rural atmosphere. Hillside Specific Plan Goal 3 Impacts on the overall natural environment shall be minimized in order to preserve the rural character. The applicant currently has an approved fence that provides the minimal enclosure requirements established by the Uniform Building Code regarding swimming pools. The applicant's proposal is in excess of the required standards. Consistency with Municipal Code Article 15-13 -Hillside Residential District The proposed project is not consistent with the 15-13.010 (a), which states that the purpose of the District is to maintain to the maximum degree feasible, the natural environment and existing rural character of the area to which the district is applied. Enclosing even a portion of the rear yard in excess of the minimum requirements for public health, welfare, and safety would create a visual distraction from the natural environment and diminish the rural 4 Application No. 06-314; 21771 Congress Hall Lane/Sabella character of the area. In addition, the fence would hinder the natural migration of animals indigenous to the hillside district. Fence Exception Findings The proposed project is not consistent with all the following Fence Exception findings required for approval by the Planning Commission as stated in Municipal Code Section 15- 29 (c): (a) The Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site. The proposed fence will be visible to the residences located directly behind the subject site, which are located at a lower elevation. In addition, the fence will be visible from Congress Hall Lane because of the sloping topography. While the applicant is proposing to plant native shrubs and vines to provide a visual barrier staff finds that the proposed planting would create an artificial screen that would emphasize the enclosure, impact the unobstructed views of the hillsides, further hinder the natural migration of wildlife, and reduce the appearance of a rural environment. (b) The Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety reason. The applicant has received approval to construct a 5-ft height tubular steel fence around the swimming pool to meet uniform building codes for public health, welfare, and safety. Expansion of the approved fence is not required for safety reasons. (c) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure has been granted by the Planning Commission fora "designated neighborhood area ... " The subject site is not within a "designated neighborhood area." Conclusion Staff has determined that the findings required to grant an exception to fence requirements can not be made and that the proposal is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that this Application is not subject to CEQA review and deny the request for an exception to fence requirements by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters. 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 5 Attachment 1 !I • RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-314 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sabella; 21771 Congress Hall Lane ,~ ~ ~~ WxExEas, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for an exception to fence requirements prohibiting enclosure of an area in excess of 4,000 ~ ~ sq. ft. in Hillside Residential Districts to allow for construction of 5-foot high tubular steel fence, enclosing approximately 8,651 sq. ft. of the rear. yard. The lot size is 48,447 square- feet and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR); and WxExEAS, 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 WxEx~AS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project is not subject to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b) (5), "This division does not apply to any of the following activities: Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves;" and WxEx~AS, the application is not consistent with the following General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan Goals and Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development The proposed fence would create an additional visual impact to the rural hillside and does not protect the existing rural atmosphere. Hillside Specific Plan Goa13 Impacts on the overall natural environment shall be minimized in order to preserve the rural character. The applicant currently has an approved fence that provides the minimal enclosure requirements established by the Uniform Building Code regarding swimming pools. The applicant's proposal is in excess of the required standards. WxEx~AS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicant's proposal is not consistent with Municipal Code Section 15-13.010 (a), which states that the purpose of the District is to maintain to the maximum degree feasible, the natural environment and existing rural character of the area to which the district is applied. Enclosing even a portion of the rear yard in excess of the minimum requirements for public health, welfare, and safety would create a visual distraction from the natural environment and diminish the rural Application No. 06-314; 21771 Congress Hall Lane/Sabella character of the area. In addition, the fence would hinder the natural migration of animals • indigenous to the hillside district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicant has not met the burden of proof of the required findings for approval under Article 15-29 (c) of the City Code. The following is a discussion of each of these unmet required findings: (a) The Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site. The proposed fence will be visible to the residences located directly behind the subject site, which are located at a lower elevation. In addition, the fence will be visible from Congress Hall Lane because of the sloping topography. While the applicant is proposing to plant native shrubs and vines to provide a visual barrier staff fmds that the proposed planting would create an artificial screen that would emphasize the enclosure, impact the unobstructed views of the hillsides, further hinder the natural migration of wildlife, and reduce the appearance of a rural environment. (b) The Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety reason. The applicant has received approval to construct a 5-ft height tubular steel fence around the swimming pool to meet uniform building codes for public health, welfare, and safety. Expansion of the approved fence is not required for safety reasons. • (c) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure has been granted by the Planning Commission fora "designated neighborhood area ... " The subject site is not within a "designated neighborhood area." Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposed fence exception application, the application is hereby denied based on the Applicant not meeting their burden of proof as set forth in Municipal Code Section 15-29 (c), not being in conformance with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan,-and not being in conformance with the goals and objectives of the City's Hillside Specific plan as discussed above. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-55.080 and 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become final fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • Application No. 06-314; 21771 Congress Hall Lane/Sabella PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of May 2006, by the following roll -call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission • Attachment 2 • r~ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 5th day of May , 2006, that I deposited 18 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING; a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown; to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof J that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that • said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: ~APN: 503-75-017 - 21771 Congress Hall; that on said day there was regular communication by United States-Mail to the addresses shown above. ~~ enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services 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 24 day of May .2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will. be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: 06-314 - 21771 Congress Hall APPLICANT: Sabella APN: 503-75-017 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests an exemption to fence requirements prohibiting • enclosure of an area in excess of 4,000 sq.-ft. in Hillside Residential Districts to allow for construction of 6-foot high fence, consisting of both chain link and tubular steel, enclosing approximately 11,251 sq. ft. of the rear yard. The lot size is 48,447 square-feet and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). 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 maybe 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 May 15, 2006. 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. Therese Schmidt Associate Planner (408) 868-1230- May 4, 2006 r 00' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 503-75-017 Sabella 21771 Congress Hall Saratoga Ca 95070 503-75-007 Steven & Rounda Sheng or current resident 14900 Vintner Ct Saratoga CA 95070-9712 503-75-010 Margaret V Walker or current resident 21756 Congress Hall Ln ~atatoga CA 95070-9714 1' t, €~:;- 5n3-75-016 Virender K & Tripta Luthra ~, 4151 Teerlink Wy Ste B ~atoga CA 95070 503-75-019 Fox Trust or current resident 21793 Congress Springsln Saratoga CA 95070-9725 503-72-012 Frihn Moore car current resident X1657 Vintage Ln 4~ra~toga CA 95070-9775 !1:i'-72-037 Charles Bedard or current resident 21750 Vintage Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9753 • 503-75-008 Anthony M & Ishbel Davis or current resident 21770 Congress Hall Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9714 503-75-011 James S Page or current resident 21751 Congress Hall Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9714 503-75-017 Douglas A & Debra Sabella or current resident 21771 Congress Hall Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9714 503-75-020 Robert E & Loretta Bums or current resident 21801 Congress Springsln Saratoga CA 95070-9725 503-72-034 Cheng Hsu PO Box 3116 Stateline NV 89449-3116 503-47-007 Chateau Masson Llc 15585 Los Gatos Blvd Los Gatos CA 95032-2570 503-75-009 Arnaud & Claire Weber or current resident 21764 Congress Hall Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9714 503-75-012 Mina Mirzaei or current resident 21757 Congress Hall Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9714 503-75-018 Samson Zarnegar or current resident 14930 Vintner Ct Saratoga CA 95070-9712 503-72-011 Ralph J Harms or current resident 21650 Vintage Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9713 503-72-035 Robert & Nancy Commins or current resident 21789 Congress Hall Ln Saratoga CA 95070-9714 City of Saratoga Att: Theresa Schmidt 13777 Friutvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 • Attachment 3 • City of Saratoga ,. ~ Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~- 10- D(o PROJECT ADDRESS: 2.111 I C/~~-1-a re.S S N"~ 1 I ~e.n C~ S~c.rrc~iv ~~ Applicant Name: ~-~-~~ I a- Application Number: 5 0 3- `l S- d ~~ Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~L'~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the Cit}~'s public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scoQe of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: \ Neighbor Address; ~.~/~,S~D ~n rpaP t~~ C ;~ Signature: u ~ ~~D~ .. 1 6 ?Ops ,~A~~Nt ©Y SAkA~~G DFYFI fin ~,. Neighbor Phone #: 8`~ ~ `lv3~f Printed: • City of Saratoga .Manning Department • Attachment 4 • • v~~~~~. W~ ~~a~~ maF~e. fnw QQ 5~ e ~ QV OZ. Wp i WZ,.?e8 ¢5 :v . I I I o I I ~ ~ I I I ~ I I ~ '` ~ ~ I I ~ ~\ m I I I ' ~ ~~\I p 1 I ~~ ~ a ~;~, ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ I I I~ / j 1 I I 1 ~ I ~ i\` I I I `~~ II j j l ~ I I I ~ I I I I I I I ~ y~ I I ~ I I I 1~~~1 I I Iy~, I I I I 1 ~yI 15 I I j ~~ ~ i ~ 1 ^__. i ---+- --=i - - i ~- 1! ~ I ii i ~= ~ r_ ~\~ i p~ I~~' u I /I ~ I 9 1 / 1 I' t\\\ ; r~l / /~~~~ ; i / /y gp ~1 II `% ~ I I j b~~ l~ I I / ~ 1 I / / / / I I 1 i / X / / I 1 / / / I ~ / I ( / I ' ~ / / / ~ I / ~ I / I~ ., I , '°4, i I; v ,, ,, / / ¢ ~/ / ( I/ ~ ~, IF \ ~ I ~~, \ ; / _ a ~. I/ I ~ I Sl d fl / ~ / ~ g /~ , I / / I / ~ / \ ~ ' I ~ , i / ~~ / ~ I / / i~ / V~\ / I ( / ~ ~ PLO / ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ / ~I / i yy /~ '" ~I \ I ~ . y~l / _ _ / -~ F- I ~ Ii I ~ j I ~ / / I ~ / I I/ / r rr~~ ~I~ ~~1I LJ ~~ O ^ N _ ::~ v ~j ' ~~ Rn~ 1 ~ ~` rte. ~ J ~ ~ ~~I~as~ ~ ~ ~ J a~ O1ai ~ ~)~~~ ~ ~ ~ w - ,, ~ ~ Z Qm 8 ai~ ~ y J ~~ y Ud W N R~ ~aw#~ ~#~~~,~~ ~ ~ F o ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g 0 J '~ ~1~ ~ ~9 ~~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~ g So l 1 I \~_~- \-~--1 br= II 11 11\ I I I , 1 1 , ~ I I I 1 1 I I I \ I I a 1 ~ < I - ~ I 1 1 1 1 I ~ N_ ~35' I ' 1 I _ I k \ ~ ` ITT ~', O ~ I ; I I I ; • - I I I I 1 I i ~ 61 / / i 2 , ' I ' I~ / / , _ / / ~~ /- .Yl I .f-,6 _L =~(__ 1 - / -r-- / .,_ / /~ / / / ~~ / / / / / ~~ / N • ~~~ \ \ __~ •-----r- -^~ y\ --- - ~~ ~~ • \ \ .t-,oz~ ~ -- - `- - I 1~~ I I _~ T ~~ V W l-, .9-1Z 1 ~ a T ~ \ 11 1 11 • ~w ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ \1 ~ ~ 1 11 ~ 11 I 11 ~ 11 ~j ~i 11 ~ '' ~ t ~ i+l I ~ I ~~ k I .1._. ~. 1 t 1 I I / 1 / I / _s ~ ~ I 1 I I 1 ( 1 { a li4 ~ R i - --i I - ~ ggI I 1 I I I 1 ~ I 1 1~ I SI I I I I I ~~ I I I I ~ I I/ '~ ~ I I I I 1 I o .s I I I 1 1 1~ 0 0 0 om io o i i 1 1 ~ I ~ ~ I Z ~ - 1 - ~ ~ 1 ~~ T 1 i i II 1 ~1/_~~ ~sZT// i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ o , ,. i ~ i g i 1. ` Q` ~~ ~ O ~ I ~m~i~~ v ~, _} C ~W W~ <(~~gZ~~ (~ Q~3~W ~ Wpo~~ W: } v a wo m ~ p ~~F- O =WAN a o~~~~ a9~~~ W=~ ~ m ~`a~WZW°o WWd' m O Z~~F y N~~< ~ ~ W ~y~~ ~ W ~aZa m Z=F~i Q Q 9 W9jF °° ~ ~~~ H ~ZWv Z a z ~~~rr' ~ ~ c~'~ ~W o z~aZa Z WZWJJ~~~ W ~~~7a~Z ~ ~~F~czS W W <K~Gj ZOJ ~~~ I ~,~,' ~~ '/mss ~ i ~' ~ I 1 1 ~ ` 1 ./`, ~~ ~Wn 72 ~~~ ~ ~< v ~?< U Z 0 F Q U L~ U I.{.I m I I`.9 • f' I I 1 I~ II Ij I i Ti' • II ~ // I I ~~ ~ - ~/_~- 1 \\ ~ ~~ / / ~ / ~i , /~'//j~ ~:.~/ Q ri m I rim F \~ ' ~ \~~ ~ ~ ~~%~ v ~\ \ / ~ Se ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ a~a~ ~ ~ 0 1y ~\ ~ \ ~ ~ U o ~ ~ ~ ~ a~d K ~~\ ~ ~ `J W ~ U ~ \~ \~ tin ~ ~ ~ $ W ~ ~ ~ ~' `~`. \, \ ~ b!~ ~~s ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ W a a ~ ~ i Z 5~~ ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~~~~ a ~r~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ a Z Nw CW ~ p~Q N~ 3 F 0 S ~$ s~ o~~i~muzis N 3 N333 o ON O il- Z < ~j < ~ j ~~j OF-R.C W~K<K p ~€F O ~~J ~Z O < WJ )Z< O)KQF G V < ~ °m O I ~F ~ ~i c ~ Nvt< 8 p°m ~~~<~"°~ "'XO ~ ~ vwi 3 iF Spy a~~k'ga~ ~ ~ ~a d FB s~ 4 z 2pio .Pi Zp V N zZwZ VpUmZ W~ J I~ V~< ~ p~ z 2 R3 C H p W m ~i O F ~~ p V a NpLL °k 'z A zo ~ ~KZ WO O ZFwp~aw NVI f ~~~° m<p °'^o O V F ~~" z~ "' Z o LL O _ <N 2 < wmY- `~F~KW W~ WW<< W Q Z = p J Z F Q~ Fa ~~N ~p ~O < ~ <a~mO~ ~~pZ~ I ~ ~ No V>11 V> N ~OVI Z F N I S s 8 ~ ~ ZZ F F (/O1O H y~V O 1J ~64 Zo p p ~UUIZ UI~e ~$V V W K Z W ZQ~ Up u i ~ U ~ ~ W S ~ O Q OU ~+ WK WOI- ZV < ~ PIU« Q p p J~j ~JW Y a Z<TF W4p _ 0 UZC -~ / 1 \ aa `r Kw O OZ ¢ ~ z~ g¢ Fi Z0Z Z0Z O ~iwF ~OZZ ~O OFZw~ ~~ZOZ€ 6 Om~ ~JZ < Z~O I ~ <z\ I p ^ ~ N g a.. ?a< W <Q c~.~~ <c~~z~<m< < ~S JJ~ <U~ $ _ a a~ ~ F ~ Cl M Y Y) m ri m m ~ N Z O Q w m m 'a^ V Z s. ~~ oQ I q~ I ~ U N Z I o i~ ^ o z 3 z 3 I 0 00 8~F I rc w~~ x n e ,n R ~ ZZ QUO ~pQ 7 ~ I I N ~ ~=OJ N g ~ ~ ~~~ 1 I I I ~G n I V V i.. O r < < ~ ~ 0 2 ~ S UN F ~~ ~ J Uq FU~ I h Y z Z z~ Vg zF~ N 5 ~ -P ~ ~ ~ s z ~ J q < y~~ Q ° Z ~ •I ~ F ~ ®® ~ 0 Q~ ~g~p g S# ~ ig ~ a `T-I ~~ W ~+ O U O W U Z LWL J 'W V! Q J m 2 Item 2 ~~'1 ~J • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 06-351; 18480 Prospect Road Application Type: Conditional Use Permit for a Dental Office in a CN Zone Applicant/Owner: Dr. Denny Fang, DDS/John Segall Management Assoc. (Owner) Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner 5.~ Date: May 24, 2006 APN: 386-10-007 Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP .. :-'a .? ", -,. ;.. ... y r Subject: 18480 Prospat Road A? - ~ '` • • • ~~ F APN: 386-10.007 ~ '"'""' """ -•-~-••' • •- . -"„- a •- a~AC~~27 _Ic I !' 3 • ~O ~C~•I~ __ ~ ~c 9 I„ • I ~ 1~'A ~IY~O ant anysx+ i ", ~ ~ „`~. , _M 9 RD• --- _~ aaasPCCr"- J06 R11A0 ---- ` rso.'ti rl ncae ~ ,~ naor e•• auo - . t'x rx x ,rw • f m M t.rn~A I 6 apl. . t ~m. ' ~ ,c.e ~><55 ~ RIR58 81 s •- „ x..i I ~ _ _.854 _g._ ~r~~° ~:a~ 39 ~ ~ e ~/ . o.es ac. R ;~ e b PC A ~' 1.00 Ac. I ~ Z rL y~~ ~_ a!]aG ..._.L. ~ ~ ~1e 3.70 fL. ~ ~, '~ a,~ : ,~ t0 4sk J~ Y'Q~c. 1 ,t Q ~` 4 ' '. a ~ ~i. _ ~=rye r . '* 4g ,,. a ,• yP ~~ A ~ p~Y ? 4 .4 ~, D ~~ v o -........_...-.._.._..........~ .............__....._...... ......_..__-__...___...... N... 18480 Prospect Road File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road ExECUTIVE SUIVIlVIARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 04/19/06 Application complete: 05/02/06 Notice published: 05/10/06 Mailing completed: 05/09/06 Posting completed: 05/18/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a dental office in an existing commercial space. The 2,300 square foot commercial space is located in a 40,075 square foot shopping center along Prospect Road near Saratoga Avenue. Establishment of a dental office in the C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 15-19.030 of the Municipal Code. The proposed business, "West Valley Dental Group," will be a General Dental Office offering services to children and adults. Services offered will include metal-free, restorative, and cosmetic dental procedures and the business will target upper middle-income patients who seek treatment for aesthetics. STAFF RECONIlVIENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. ATTACI-IMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval 2. "West Valley Dental Group" business plan from the applicant 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels 4. Fire Deparhnent requirements 5. Photographs of onsite parking at "The Big Tree Center" 6. Photo of subject space and sign location 7. Proposed signage including dimensions, lettering and graphic 8. Tenant improvement plans, Exhibit "A" • • File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Background The proposed 2,300 squaze foot subject space is to be located in an existing outdoor multi- tenant shopping center known as "The Big Tree" located on Prospect Avenue. "The Big Tree" is in close proximity to the City of San Jose neaz the intersection of Saratoga and Prospect Avenues and is situated on a 40,075 square-foot pazcel in the C-N zone. The shopping center consists of a two-story building, which is approximately 12,000 square foot. The ground floor of the center, which is approximately 9,500 square feet, houses two anchor tenants, See's Candy and Roundtable Pizza, along with approximately seven smaller tenants. These small shops, salons, and services include a jeweler, tailor/cleaners, a restaurant, and two salons. Offices occupy the second floor space, which is approximately 2,500 squaze feet. In 2003, a conditional use permit was granted to allow "The Zone Internet Access Center" to operate in the subject space. However, The Zone closed and the space has been vacant for over a year. The location, configuration, and size of the subject space have created unusual challenges in finding a retail tenant. Approximately two-thirds of the front wall abuts the side wall of the adjacent space (cleaner). This leaves an exposed width of less than seventeen feet for the front. door and any window display area. Any display would further reduce the minimal natural light coming into the space. A second deterrent to finding retail clients is the size of the space (approximately 2,300 squaze feet), since most of the other retail spaces in the center are only 600 or 900 square feet. The listing broker, who is working with the applicant, provided the background on the subject space and the problems associated with its location within the shopping center: "It is located in the "elbow" of the building and has very little visibility. Over the past 10 yeazs, I have been involved in leasing space in this building and have seen at least five different tenants come and go. During this time, the subject space has been (by faz) the most difficult space to lease and keep occupied. The vacancy rate on this space is approximately 33%. The space has been vacant for over one year while the ex-tenant continues to pay rent until their lease expires. Part of the problem is that retail uses really need visibility. A dental office is a "destination." Normally, a person would go there every 6 months for cleanings and once they have been to the office, they would not need to find it again by signage. The lack of visibility isn't as important to a dentist as it is to retail uses. We have spoken to five other tenants about the dental use and they are happy to see such a stable use....I have done many dental leases and all have done well in their offices, but the one who prospered the most was in a retail center in Santa Claza." File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road Proposed Dental Use as a Conditional Use This application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is to establish a dental office serving both children and adults. A CUP is required to establish a medical use in the Commercial-Visitor (CV) zoning designation pursuant to Saratoga City Code Section 15- 19.040(b)(3). The City 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 City." This tenant would be the only dental office in the shopping center, and Planning Staff would discourage any additional medical or dental offices in a ground floor space at this location, thereby promoting the desired mixture of establishments. The subject tenant space is located on the first floor and is approximately 2,300 square feet. The space is currently vacant. The applicant plans to submit a tenant improvement plan to establish areception/waiting area, seven patient rooms including 6 adult dental chairs and 3 children's orthodontic chairs, a lab, and office area: The office will serve patients between the hours of gam-Spm on weekdays and between gam- 2pm on Saturdays. A maximum of four employees, including the applicant, will be onsite. Economic Impacts General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." Although this is a commercial. center, the location of the site has not been conducive to successful retail and has now been vacant for over a year. A dental office will increase the number of people who frequent the small shopping center, which will benefit all businesses located in the center. The applicant has met with the center manager and several of the existing tenants and they are supportive of the new business and its potential stability. Parking The existing parking lot .includes 56 spaces. 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 facility requires no additional parking. The previous tenant, "The Zone," was approved for a use requiring approximately 20 spaces. A 2,300-square foot dental office requires only 12 parking spaces.- Staff has also surveyed the parking area during the business day and found that there is adequate parking available with 20-30 vacant parking spaces at various times throughout the day. Signage The size and material of the proposed Signage is consistent with the appearance of existing Signage for the center. Signage for the individual businesses in the center are Plexiglas facing with interior illuminated cabinet casing- (see attachment 3). The proposed Signage is to be located within the existing casing located above the frontage of the space. It is - File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road approximately eight feet in length and two feet in width. The maximum letter size will be 9 inches. The applicant has submitted a detail for the proposed signage, which includes blue lettering, a white background, and a graphic (see attachment 5). The fluorescent sign will be illuminated from dusk until midnight. Public Comment Staff has not received any comments at the time of writing this staff report. The applicant has notified the existing tenants within -the building and has not received any comments. USE PERMIT FINDINGS The proposed project supports the findings for Use Permit approval; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CN). The City 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. "Given the configuration of the existing building and the history of this particular space, a non-retail use; such as a medical use, is likely to be preferred by prospective tenants. It will support the objectives of the Code by promoting stability and providing- a service that is conveniently located, providing a service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities, and promoting additional pedestrian traffic in the shopping center, which will be beneficial to the surrounding uses. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the operation of a dental office is typically not intrusive in terms of noise, -odor, or other sources of pollution to the surrounding areas. Appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. The dental office will be open for business during normal business hours and will enhance the medical services offered to the residents of the City. • File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof in that the proposed dental office may attract more visitors to the area and therefore may result in additional customers for other businesses in the general vicinity of the subject property. Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the Saratoga City Code. The proposed dental office is not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor is it expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. -The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to medical uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve use permit application number 06-351 by adopting the attached Resolution. r~ • Attachment 1 i File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-351 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Dr. Denny Fang, DDS; 18480 Prospect Road (Property Owner John Segall Management Associates) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission- has received an application for Conditional Use Permit approval to establish a dental office in an existing building located at 18480 Prospect Road (The Big Tree Center), which is located in the C-N (Commercial Neighborhood); 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 WHEREAS, the project, which includes establishment of a dental office is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This exemption consists of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: . • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CN). The City 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. "-Given the configuration of the existing building and the history of this particular space, a non-retail use, such as a medical use, is likely to be preferred by prospective tenants. It will support the objectives of the Code by promoting stability and providing a service that is conveniently located, providing a service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities, and .promoting additional pedestrian traffic in the shopping center, which will be beneficial to the surrounding uses. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road vicinity in that the operation of a dental off ce is typically not intrusive in terms of noise, odor or other sources of pollution to the surrounding areas. Appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. The dental office will be open for business during normal business hours- and will enhance the medical services offered to the residents of the City. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof in that the proposed dental office may attract more visitors to the area and therefore may result in additional customers for other businesses in the general vicinity of the subject property. 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, application number 06- 351 for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The dental office shall operate as represented on the plans marks "Exhibit A." 3. The fluorescent sign will be illuminated from dusk to midnight. 4. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 5. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department showing proof of compliance of the proposed facility with the Heath Department's requirements. 6. 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. • File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road 7. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit to and obtain approval from the Community Development Department for a business license. 8. 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 Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. FIRE DEPARTMENT 9. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (attached). Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months from the date on which this Use Permit became effective 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. • File No. 06-351; Fang; 18480 Prospect Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of May 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda Rodgers, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Secretary, Planning Commission This ermit is hereb acce ted u on the ex ress terms and conditions hereof and shall p Y p P P 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 (John Segall Management Date Associates or Authorized Agent) Applicant (Dr. Denny Fang, DDS) Date • Attachment 2 • • Company: West Valley Dental Group Practitioners: Denny Fang, DDS and Julia Wu-Fang, DDS (Husband & Wife) Address: 18480 Prospect Rd., Saratoga, CA 95070 Description of Proposed Business The establishment of West Valley Dental Group as a leader in dental care and services will provide a variety of esthetic, `metal free', restorative and cosmetic dental procedures. Our state- of-the-art office environment will feature high tech equipment for treatments ranging from routine restorations to implants. Patients from the neighboring community will benefit enormously from our modern and friendly office. Office hours will be M-F 9-5 and Sat 9-2. The company's goal is to educate the public on preventing cavities. A success indicator to our office will be to see a decrease in cavities within our patients through the years. A goal would be to treat a child with rampant decay and through education the child through adulthood is seen for only periodic exams with no new cavities. Our philosophy is that our office will succeed by comprehensive treatment. This includes diet, preventive procedures, and education. Another benefit to patients will be that all restorations including crowns will be completed in one appointment. This benefits the patient's greatly by not having to take another day off work. This unique treatment will be given on a Cerec machine, which scans the prepared tooth then mills the restoration in porcelain in one hour. Most dental offices do not have this machine in their day-to- day dental practices because of its high cost. This is a new concept that others in the surrounding community are not delivering. Typically patients will arrive for their appointment and after the tooth is prepared, the patient will walk and shop through the Big Tree Plaza and the adjacent shopping centers for an hour then return to have the final restoration delivered. Market/lndustry Analysis The company will be a General Dental Office providing service to all ages. No products will be sold in the office with only service provided. Our major competitor will not be your average Dental Office "around the corner" but will be an office that has remodeled both in construction and design of their office and their philosophy of patient's dental experience. We want to offer a different experience to each patient, with a comfortable family atmosphere where people desire only the best treatment without compromise. We want to tap into the niche that expects more, especially esthetically. As mentioned previously we will not provide any metal restorations allowing each patient to leave with a uniform smile and the look and feel as if they have never had any dental work. . Marketing Strategy The target group for our office is on average the upper middle-income home that seeks treatment for esthetics. Although treatment will be available for all incomes, due to the nature of the supplies and services, typically those patients who are accustomed to spending a little more for superior quality will find our office. Products to be -used will be all composite "tooth colored" or 1 porcelain restorations. The porcelain restorations are guaranteed for 5 years. This is unprecedented among dental offices and labs. Marketing or advertising is going to be a key area to get the business started and later maintain its success. Within the first two years heavy marketing practice. will be used to inform the community of the new plaza and our Dental Office and will consist of and not be limited to the following: • Grand Opening for future patients to meet the Doctor's, staff and have a tour of the office. This is expected to occur within the first 3 months of opening. • Regular visits to the local junior and high schools will be scheduled to inform and educate the importance of hygiene and nutrition. • Sponsorship of local events and clubs such as Boy's and Girl's Scouts. • Visits and education programs provided to geriatrics will also be given in the office after hours • Nutritionist will be brought in to give lectures and presentations on maintenance and oral cancer detection. • Regular neighborhood direct mailings will be a majority of our advertising. Thank you for your consideration and opportunity to develop and grow our ideal Dental Practice within the West Valley. ~~ ~~ 2 • • Attachment 3 C7 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 9`}'. day of May , 2006, that I deposited 25 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 386-10-007 - 18480 Prospect Road; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. j ~ ~~ ~~-~ Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • 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 24th day of May 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: 06-351 - 18480 Prospect Road APPLICANT: Fang APN: 386-10-007 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Dental Office in an existing tenant space located in a Commercial Neighborhood 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 Tuesday, May 16, 2006. 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. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner (408) 868-1212 May 8, 2006 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 386-10-007 Fang 18480 Prospect Rd Saratoga CA 95070 381-36-012, 014, 018, 020, 021, 023, 027 381-37-025 381-37-026 Cp6Ww Llc West Valley Shopping C West Valley Shopping C 4675 Stevens Creek Blvd 230 5205 Prospect Rd 2277 Alum Rock Ave Santa Clara CA 95051-6767 San Jose CA 95129-5000 San Jose CA 95 1 1 6-20 1 8 386-10-004 386-10-006- 386-10-007 Leonard Vella Edward & Virginia Patrick John B & Reva Segall 231 Houret Dr PO Box 6030 456 Cornell Ave Milpitas CA 95035-6801 Phoenix Az 85005-6030 San Mateo CA 94402-2204 386-10-036 3.86-10-033, 044, 045, 046, 049 386-10-035 Yasuto & Dorothy Kato ato Brothers ~, Salinas Valley Savings & Loan As or Current Resident ~?77 Saratoga Ave PO Box 7788 1777 Saratoga Ave San Jose CA~ 95129-5205 Newport Beach CA 92658-7788 San Jose CA 95129-5205 386-10-040 386-10-041 386-10-043 First Baptist Church Of Quito Pa W B & Mary Malone Ray Russo or Current Resident ~ 1735 Saratoga Ave 4010 Moorpark Ave 111 1735 Saratoga Ave San Jose CA 95129-5203 San Jose CA 95117-1804 San Jose CA 95129-5203 386-10-054 386-10-055 386-10-056 Stephen Gazzera Damico Tire Service Inc Saratoga Av Baptist Church 10083 Senate Way PO Box 969 1735 Saratoga Ave Cupertino CA 95014-5709 San Jose CA 95108-0969 San Jose CA 95129-5203 386-23-051 ?86-10-058 386-10-059 Paul G & Phili Heller Great Western Savings & Loan Ass Hae Ho P or Current Resident _x:808 Adeline St 2 PO Box 7788 18651 San Palo Ct J3erkeley CA 94703-2224 Newport Beach CA 92658-7788 Saratoga CA 95070-3531 386-23-053 386-23-054 386-23-052 Holloway Trust Mohssen Rastegar-Panah or Current Resident Alban & Angela Yee 15127 Sperry Ln 18675 San Palo Ct 19746 Via Grande Dr Saratoga CA:95070-6274 Saratoga CA 95070-3531 Saratoga CA 95070-4467 403-33-002 ~ 403-33-009 403-33-014 Cloyd Smith A T C Building Co Sunrise Penguin Saratoga Ltd Par 6114 Franciscan Way PO Box 63931 71 S Wacker Dr 4700 San Jose CA'95120-4416 San Francisco CA 94163-0001 ChiCAgo Il 60606-4637 City of Saratoga Attn: Suzanne Thomas ~- - 777 Fruitvale Ave. ~atoga CA 95070 • • Attachment 4 • • a- ~~ ~~ FIRE ~' COURTESY 6 SERVICE CODE/SEC. SHEET ~ NO. 1. 2. FII~ DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org ~~ 06 1018 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER c FILE NUMBER 06-514 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIREMENT Review of site plan for a Conditional Use Permit for a new dental office. 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. Existing fire sprinkler system to be modified as necessary. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this ,department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Revise drawings in writing to reflect compliance with this requirement. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ SHULTZ & ASSOCIATES 4/28/2006 1 of l SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Commercial Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT DENNY FANG DDS LOCATION 18480 Prospect Rd Organized as the Santa Clara-County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell; Cupertino. Los Altos, - Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno; Morgan Hill, and Saratoga Attachment 5 • • • ONSITE PARHING i q =%> _~ Subject Space 1 6 spots in front of subject site, facing south ~: ~; . -: ~: - ,ATM 4~ ~ _ i ~f.~ ~r x-i. .._.... h ~_~1~+- rte...... ,...:-J Street parking looking west on Prospect ~i 14 parking spots along Kragen's wall 6 spots in front of See's 9 additional spots facing east Street parking looking east on Prospect J ONSITE PARHING ,.w~~ ~'~ fi~t~' ~` ! `~ '~ TOTAL PARKING 35 parking spots in front, plus street parking 21 additional parking spots in back with access through the building • • • • Attachment 6 • • • z 3 w z jU~ L~6~~1~~ ~~I; uu MAY 1 7 2006 ~~J CITY OF SARATOGA • • Attachment 7 • • ~u~ ~6[~~~[~ uu MAY 1 7 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA ""'~~UNITY DEVELD°"~'~ ~~ N ~~ • ~s r.~ V q v ~-.~ .~ .~ 0 0 -~ ~ ~ v c o ~~ ~ ~ • \ ~l 4~ • Attachment 8 t C The hours of operation are M-F 9:OOAM - S:OOPM, Sat. 9:OOAM - 2:OOPM Four employees including doctor. Door to be closed off MAY 1 7 `~ ~I a N Denn~ Fang DDS ' PRELIMINARY Shultz `'~SSOC1SteS ~ ~ New Dente Office 18480 Prospect Rd. FLOOR PLAN 39039 Paseo Padre'Pkwy, Suite 209 ,_. a Saratoga, CA Fremont, CA 94538 N SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" p. 510.796.7801 f. 510.796.5434 sy °s~ ~ ~ N WO oLOSS d~ `doodads p ~;~I T Z V ~ h - a_ ~ ~ W pi •aa 1~3dSOad o8 Y 8~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~°I <~aN~ `~ "" " 1N3W3nO~IdWI 1NdN~1 o°~ Y~ C°eVW o ~zw Y^ ~ tiv°v W~~ >.. _~ a< ~ ~ o ~ ; s ~ ~ _ ~° Z a o ova 7v n ~~IddO ~d1N~a S JNb' ~ 'aa - ,y . , . 'a2~ 1~3dSO~ld \/ w - - - - ~~ I~ ~- ~ ~ J = Q W N Z J r-m? J ~cN~ Z m ~ ~ W N w~~a La I~ Q°o~ o~ ~ W S W J ~~~'U wro w5C ~- OQZQ w~ ~~ t- a Q E ~ZQ r i (1~ ~ O J j Z~ (Q ~( L~ u F ZQ~J= ZZ m Q O ~ ~ ~ r QQQ~_ NZ Z • ~i OU QW ~~Z Ww~Nw~z • ~ w`~ z U OQ pW~~ ~w ' • ! ~ ~ I WAR • 1 ~. • • ~ ~ . ' w ~~ A ~z ~ 3 Q V ~• ~ w W O Ri. Q O ~ ta, O F .a Q ~ ¢ mm~ ~ ~ ~" rd~~ ~~~ aGZOw~d~, OW¢~ x wr~1 ~ w ~oa~~ ow~a~a~ ~'aQ~p~oz zda~i¢w~ a a a W f- .. ~o __ `~ ~ Y o ~; T ~ Q 0 ~ _ y 4 <a ~~ - cE ~c V n o o ' ~~ ~~ ~~ Z ~~~ „~ I ~~~ ~~ ~ °~ ill ~~a 0~ a ., ~ ~.~y~ PI ~ ~ a~s~~ 8 I J ~~ ~ I ~ ~ I~ I __ ` d - ~ ` ~ ~ ¢ 9 _; ~` Q `~~ U yam' t ~- --- -\ --=~`~- ~ i Z Q I = T[~ R~.6 ~` z v Z Z J n. W ~_ ~~ 0 J I N Z ~a '~ U ~ a ~ CC Y _ Z 2 1 Q ~ _ i ~ boa T QJ W Q QaW I i~ , O W W~ WQZ I ~ 1 3 ~~OW ~>O I I Z d~t~ ~~~ I U wW3m wU w ~ ~ m~ N 0 a a ~ o~ ~Z~& z o- ~Zo s o u~~. ~`~Y u~w mQ ~ O o J W J~-U J u. JU d U J J a UR'1 O ~. O 3 ~W Wd7 ~ Z iONy z ~ ~ ` m0 m v 0~ _ . ~ ..9 -.I ..8-.9 ..9-.. I I I i I i i ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~- I ~ '~ N ~ I N ~ \~ / Q J QttW~Q ~ ~m I ~WQ~~a~wWE WWO~ I~ I O ~~ Q Z~ 7~7 ~~ W m~~ Q W '- ~ ~~ OW N W N N~ Q U~ F~~ ~ Q N~QW=~NUQ~O_E~~ Z i 33 ~ ~~Q W ~Q ~ Q ~ IQ ~jN Q Z ZZ p w~Y=wO~=w~R~W~WR' N 8 LL J J 2 0~ Z J~ W W Z W? Q ~ Z w NWm~~aUUwZadWWU F O N-ZZ_~~JN ~ W JIIIm Z C9 XZ_-)CTZN R~SQ X WJ ~W N '~O°~3~~O~Lw2W~~> ~ ~ _ Z ^^~ 1~ Q U Z 2 I'~ W v ('~ z z C'3 KZ I.L. a a Q Z Q ~-. W ... N z /z/~ ~/V~/~ VJ Q Q I O W v Item 3 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • C Application No./Location: 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane Type of Application: Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit Applicant/Owner: Diane and Larry Haney, Appellant and Property Owner Staff Arborist: Kate Bear-' Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 APN: 389-46-006 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP $UbJeCt: :a~/"I ~ .I. x/o ~ O 3: .~B ss I cs ,L3 y ~ xs ss ' ~ w ~ j 69 ?i 1 13397 Sousa Lane ° ' " _ ~ -"" J 1 ------- W " ' ' t 1 to ------r----- n,ey s' a -= rr--T-':.-° APN: 389-46-006 = .[z -' J : ~ t, x . _--_-- $ m • an „;,,, , 5~71Zaf11US 1 _I ~ ~ xt I n L 8/ i, p a. ______is--,s - i i xaa~M1l ° 1 ~.° ~ .yy d ~iJ` "r__J~U ~4 1' ~ N s. ; `~'Cs I- 1y y'7Q 1" iS/ 1 ~ 1 ~ B \ 1a n J.¢' 9 - ~ `.sf3 , sl ~~: "~~ ,j t~- i1~~.'_ war x ' .c 1 .7 ~ w IS '~ ~:` so y^ _Jt?u__ j /-~~ _ i_. _' _" ~... dl ~.. ~~ 1 u ~ tt 6 O ' i x ~ ', •a•~~s aQ 1 I.N K s J Y ya 1 1 1 1 _ y ~~Y • $I P0. 1 ;~. x ~ ~ ' ~ 1' I /J'~:' :l ~. I I ` B J aa7 K ~8 LOT 981 ' Y + S T Ir ~ n,.•" - YOR TON c~ ~ " ~' 500° °'racxme1 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ s : ~ 8I °~ ~~ - ": l q ~ 3 I i y 9 8' 0.M K . Z _ ~ _ _~..~_.__ ~ '~• -- -. ~ ~[ ~ s i D L7 I+ ~y ~ s ~' ~ s xl I w l 1 _ ~ w ~ s O s B d I` I ~~• ~"s I t1 a x ~,... ~ ~ d ~ I , 1 q 1-... srs A~ Mv'. mil' _ _w_ I 1 t aI i NAIIF A _n ~ ~~ J ~ O`er 32 SiJ wxWSO/ '+~~.SS ~ ~ 8 ~ a L s l ~+~ ". _~~ o I _ J. O lii ~ .m sx ~~JJ C ~ '~J ~L+o 93 nt// 9 -, • ~ SIC 50N ~osE ;' ~ ~"'4a ~ F w• wEST ~~ ~~ ~ o° O 1 .« ti ~' ~ e.; 27 4 CO ~, R c 4 ` ~` QS, SJS/3a 1 ~ ~ ,'+' a c t ~ - 13397 Sousa Lane Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane - EXECUTIVE SiJPVIMARY CASE HISTORY Tree Removal Permit Application filed: 3/14/06 Tree Removal Permit Application denied: 3/17/06 Appeal Application Filed: 5/2/06 Notice published: 5/10/06 Mailing completed: 5/8/06 Posting completed: 5/18/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner of the property at 13397 Sousa Lane has filed an appeal of Staffls denial of a Tree Removal Permit to remove one deodar cedar tree, saying that the tree is dangerous due to the number of limbs that have broken off of it causing damage to the roof of the house. The Deodar cedar is located near the front door and measures 35 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). The tree has been excessively thinned in the center of the tree, also known as lion's tailing, resulting in limbs with excessive weight at the ends of the branches. STAFF RECOMIVVII;NDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the application for tree removal of the deodar cedar tree and instead recommends corrective pruning to reduce the weight at the ends of the branches. • 2 Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane • STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT DISCUSSION The application for removal of the tree was denied because the tree appears to be in good health and does not appear to be unstable, hazardous, or to interfere with utilities or cause damage to any impervious structures. FINDINGS Saratoga is primarily a residential community where economic property values are inseparably connected with the attractiveness of the area resulting from the native and ornamental trees planted throughout the city. The goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees. The General Plan supports preservation of the City's landscape trees to maintain Saratoga's scenic character through .the Conservation Element Policy 2.4 (control the removal or destruction of trees). Pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.080 in order for a Tree Removal Permit to be issued, the tree removal permit application must meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The tree appears healthy with no visible decay and is not in imminent danger of falling. (2) .The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The tree has dropped limbs on the roof causing damage to roof tiles which have been repaired. (3) The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. Erosion is not an issue in this case. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. 3 Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane This is the only large tree in the front yard. If it were removed that would impact the scenic beauty, shade and aesthetic appearance of the property. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. The property can support more trees than are currently planted on it. This is the only tree in the front yard. One large oak tree in the back yard was removed last year with a permit, due to the owner's concern about it falling on the house. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. There is an alternative available to removing the tree; it can be correctively pruned under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist to reduce the weight at the ends of the branches. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. Approval of the request to remove the deodar cedar is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect the trees in the City. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. The owners are concerned that- the tree may drop a limb on them or their grandchild. Corrective pruning to reduce the weight at the ends of the branches can mitigate limb failure. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or -other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. It is not necessary to remove the tree for economic enjoyment of the property. 4 Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane CONCLUSION Removal of the deodar cedar is not adequately supported by the criteria of the City Code and it is recommended for retention. Reconstructive pruning of the canopy is required and can be done by a tree service under the direction of a certified arborist. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Denial for the removal of the deodar cedar. 2. Tree removal permit application, including applicant's site map and City denial. • ~~ 5 ~...~ Attachment 1 • • Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane -Haney RESOLUTION 06-033 Application No. 06-092 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Larry and Diane Haney; 13397 Sousa Lane ' WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove one deodaz cedaz tree at 13397 Sousa Lane; 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 present evidence; and WHEREAS, Saratoga is primarily. a residential community where economic property values aze inseparably connected with the attractiveness of the area resulting from the native and ornamental trees planted throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the Municipal Code, in order for a Tree Removal Permit to be issued, the tree must meet at least one of the criteria stated in section 15-50.080; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for Tree Removal Permit for one deodaz cedar, and after application of the criteria regarding a permit for removal of a tree, which criteria are set forth in City Code Section 15-50.080, the following findings have been determined: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The deodar cedar appears to be healthy with no visible signs of decay and is not in imminent danger of falling or interfering with utilities. (2) The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The tree has dropped limbs on the roof causing damage to roof tiles which have been repaired. Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane -Haney (3) The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. Erosion is not an issue in this case. (4) The number, species, size and location. of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. The deodar cedar provides scenic beauty and shade and adds to the landscape value of the property. (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. The property can support more trees than are currently planted on it. There is one other young liquidambar in the front yard. One large oak tree in the back yard was removed last year with a permit, due to the owner's concern about it falling on the house. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. There is an alternative available to removing the tree; it can be correctively pruned under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist to reduce the weight at the. ends of the branches. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. Approval of the request to remove the deodar cedar is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect the trees in the City. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. Tlie owners are concerned that the tree may drop a limb on them or their grandchild. Corrective pruning to reduce the weight at the ends of the branches can mitigate limb failure. (9) It is necessary to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. It is not necessary to remove the tree for economic enjoyment of the property. Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane -Haney • NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The deodar cedar shall be retained. CITY ATTORNEY Applicant agrees to hold the 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 the 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 request. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City or other governmental entities must be met. • r~ x ~ Application No. 06-092; 13397 Sousa Lane -Haney PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, May 24, 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda Rogers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission C` • i~ • Attachment 2 • fii~ _ ~~ -~ ~O- 6G (~ Date Received:~~~"~ Tree RemovaU:Pruning;Permit Appi~cation Permit No: ~i ~U~ 2 Permit Cosf : $.75.00 `Expiration Date: ~~ Propert}',Owner: ~% ~G~n/"~ -- Phone:(hm)~ -~ :~(~vk) d1~~ 1Vlailing Address: / ~ ~ 9~ ::5~ ~~4- ~~ -S~~ ~~~7z~6.~ ~ 9~~v Address where tree(s)`to beremoved: S~~E Nearest cross street: Q~li-y Company to remove tree(s) /11a~ ~1'y~~~ I:understand-.that .the tree(s).. may be removed only if found to be with in the criteria as established by Artic1e15-50.080 of he City code-and that by igning-this form, I am certifying thatahe tree(s) to be removed~is/are solely on my property. Cll.. ~-~ ` ~Y i4~~~-~ _ Signature of Property'Owner - ' Tree Removal permits-are required for the-removal of the_following trees:- Native -Trees with a DBH(diameter at breast height) of 6''or greater (19"in -circumference measured 4 % feet above the ~ ground):Otherarees-.with a DBH of 10" or greater-(31"- in circumference measured 4 %z feet above `~ the. ground). Any street tree (tree within a.publicstreet or. right of way) regardless of size. Any ~ ~ . ~c Heritage-tree (tree. designated by:HPC and. CC regaaddeess of size.: Elease list`all trees to be removed • _ in the-table below: SPECi~.S -.: J1G~ - rc n"Awi~. r vx nr.iviv v ~ ~ ~ _ ~, a ~ y ~ _ j ~ ~-~ - - ~~~`% ~~~ GAT- ~ t~ ~~r~v ~-L. o ,..~~ ~ l~~ii9 ~ %~ ~~G,~1z ~ ~ ocahon.of Trees 3 Prepare a small site plan the area:below;showing all treesao be removed-from the property; include dimensions fromproperty lines and'existing structures.. ~ c~~a~2-T ~~ - - ~~ A Jn~~ ~ s Lv~~ ~~1T1~~c ~ T,~~ 1~SC ~EES PAID:. RECEIPT: NO: ~ Tree Removal Permits:will be eld-for a period.of ten.days after inspection approval pursuant to Saratoga.Municipal Code section C 15-90.050(a) for any.: interested arty fo appeal. the administrative,decision to the Planning Commission. ``.,' ~, s CITY OF SARATOC,~~ Tree Removal Permit # • V (Q ~ V 1 L .Applicant: Address Where Tree(s) Are To Be Removed • To Be Completed By A Field Inspector a 'this tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article I5-50 of the Gity Code based on tke following. ~• Does Not 1 • Mcets Criteria Crier The tree is DEAD The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to the ^ structures and interference with utility services. ~ C The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to ~ improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. • The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion; soil retention and a C the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. , ~ The number, species. size and location of the existing trees in the area and the effect the ^ removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion `• control, and the general welfare in the area. The age-and number of healthy trees on the.properry is able to support according to good L •~ forest practices. Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching L ~ on a protected tree Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose • or intent of Article 15-50 The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is ^ ~ (~' no other feasible alternative to the removal. • Conditions of Approval • .Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. The Citq will re-inspect to ensure . ,compliance with all conditions of approval. Tl,;s tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons: Yew G~ ~ / a - - _ PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: --~ ~f Date of Tns coon ~ 1 Signature of Inspector /~~,1 ".~~/l~ Pe 0 Effective Date of Permit Community Development Representative ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ~ © ~~ S ~. ~ ~ L. ~ ADDRESS '+~ ~ CO~i~ E' L.C_ ~ V ~ S~~ ~~ ~ SUBJECT ~F- ~ ~ ~ ~ G DATE ~ Z d6 TELEPHONE NO. ~ 5d ~3 a~ - ~ ~6 AGENDA ITEM NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: ~ ~ ~ O (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRIl~IG TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME `'~-.~1. ~J rYl'S 'Z~&6~ SUBJECT ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ 3 ~ 7S ~0 17 ~~'~~. AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ DATE ~ ~ O TELEPHONE NO. ~ fl~ ~ 7y 1~~T- TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIlZING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADDRESS 7 SUBJECT Sa,~~ ~ ~ w r~~ ~~ r~ AGENDA ITEM NO.O~O ' ~`~ DATE ~Iz y~d~ TEIrEPHONE NO. ~ ~~~-~1~G~G TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: ~ ^ y ~ (Please read insfixcrions on reverse side) ~~~f I ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNIlVG COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~ Ji`~i NAME ~ 1~L ~ `~9 ADDRESc `~ ~~ ~2~~~~ suBJECT ~- U Fin- ~ ~~~ L AGENDA ITEM NO. 2' DATE S ~' ~ 6 C TELEPHONE NO TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: ~ Z'y o b ~2 3 - ~w~ (Please read instructions on reverse side)