HomeMy WebLinkAbout103-Planning Commission documents (staff report, resolution, fire comments).pdf
1
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. CUP 09-0004
Location: 20398 Blauer Drive
Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Applicant: Alex Du Von
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP
Meeting Date: 10/14/09
APN: 393-02-005 Department Head:
John Livingstone, AICP
20398 Blauer Drive
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 03/18/09
Application complete: n/a
Notice published: 09/29/09
Mailing completed: 09/29/09
Posting completed: 10/08/09
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a new day care facility in an
existing 5,000 square foot building formerly occupied by office uses. As proposed, the facility
would have five (5) employees and provide services for 56 students. The property has 14 available
parking spaces. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The property is
located in the Professional Administrative (PA) zoning district and requires a use permit for the
proposed use.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects which a public
agency rejects or disapproves, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter
3, Article 19, Section 15270(a).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application as proposed because the
applicant would not agree to a Peer Review of the Traffic Study and staff cannot therefore
confirm the validity of the Traffic Study.
Alternatively, the Planning Commission could continue the project to allow the applicant to pay
fees necessary for peer review of the traffic study. Staff recommendations regarding the number
of students allowed would be primarily based on results of the traffic study and peer review
recommendations.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval.
3
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: Professional Administrative (PA)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Administrative (PA)
PARCEL SIZE: 21,780 sq. ft.
TENANT SPACE: Approximately 5,000 sq. ft.
FORMER USE: The project would be located in an existing building formerly occupied by offices
which are a permitted use.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Land uses surrounding the site are commercial uses to the north and
west, and residential uses to the east and south.
PROPOSED USE: The facility would operate as a daycare center.
HOURS OF OPERATION: Proposed hours of operation for the facility are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
EMPLOYEES: As proposed, the facility would operate with 4 employees.
STUDENTS: As proposed, the facility would provide services for 56 students.
BUILDING SITE: The project would be located in an existing 5,000 square foot building.
PARKING: The property has 14 existing parking spaces.
SIGNAGE: The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. If any signage is desired in the
future, the applicant would be required to submit a sign permit application for review and approval
by the Planning Commission or through the administrative review process, as appropriate.
4
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Background
Prior to scheduling the project for Planning Commission review, staff met with the applicant to
discuss concerns related to traffic impacts and parking requirements for the proposed project.
Staff also spoke with the applicant regarding the need for a Peer Review of the applicant’s Traffic
Study. Standard practice for determining the required numbers of parking spaces has been based on
a Traffic Study performed by an applicant’s traffic engineer and a Peer Review of the traffic study
by the City’s traffic consultant. The purpose of the Peer Review is to validate the adequacy and
appropriateness of the assumptions used by the applicant’s traffic engineer for the project
analysis and recommendations. The applicant would not agree to a Peer Review and has requested
the Planning Commission make a decision on the proposal based solely on the Traffic Study
without peer review of the Traffic Study provided by the applicant’s traffic engineer.
Based on the results of the Traffic Study, the applicant has reduced the number of proposed
students from 80 to 56. However, the Traffic Study, conducted by the applicant’s traffic engineer,
indicates that the 14 available parking spaces could only accommodate 40 students. The Traffic
Study is included as Attachment #3 and is discussed below.
Proposed Project
The use would operate as a day care facility for young children. The day care facility would be
located in an existing 5,000 square foot building. The property currently has 14 available parking
spaces. As proposed, the facility would have five (5) employees and provide services for 56
students. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The applicant also proposes a play area within the front setback. The play area would be comprised
of three areas of grass and artificial turf. The three play areas would be connected by a 10” high
redwood bridge/walkway and enclosed within a fence. The site plan does not show the location of
any permanent play structures; however the applicant has indicated their intent to have portable play
equipment that would be brought inside the facility in the evening. Examples of the type of play
equipment proposed will be on display at the Public Hearing. City Code does not allow play
equipment within the front setback area. Furthermore, play equipment may not appear harmonious
with other buildings and uses in the neighborhood. The minimum front setback area is twenty-five
feet. According to the California State Department of Social Services, the open space requirement
for licensed day care centers is 75 square feet per child. Currently, the site plans shows
approximately 2,800 square feet of play area which would accommodate approximately 37
children.
Fencing and Landscaping:
The property is currently surrounded by existing mature landscaping. New landscaping and a four
foot (4’) high wrought-iron fence and gate would be installed in the front yard. The wrought-iron
5
fence would be comprised of two inch (2”) horizontal rails, one inch (1”) vertical rails, and three
inch (3”) posts.
Traffic and Parking
The applicant submitted a traffic study completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
(attachment 4).
The applicant’s Traffic Study indicates that a maximum of 40 students could be accommodated by
the 14 available parking spaces. The Traffic Study assumes that “the average parking duration
would be a few minutes.” The Traffic Study does not consider the potential for large events and the
applicant has not provided further details on the types of programs offered at the day care center.
While the Traffic Study does discuss the possibility of using parking spaces on Blauer Drive as well
as parking spaces from adjacent buildings, the City does not count street parking towards the off-
street parking requirement. Furthermore, staff discourages shared parking on other sites because
it restricts the types of current and future uses that the adjacent property can accommodate,
given the reduced parking available for their use. The City’s shared parking requirements are
discussed below.
Per City Code section 15-35.020(h) off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same site as the
use for which the spaces are required, or on an adjacent site or a site separated only by an alley. City
Code section 15-35.020(d) indicates that the off-street parking requirements may be satisfied by a
common parking facility provided that the total number of spaces shall be not less than the sum of
the individual requirements (i.e., there is no overlap of parking). City Code also requires a formal
contract for the shared parking agreement be recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant notified adjacent businesses and residents. Public notice was sent to all property
owners within 500 feet of the project. Staff has received two written comments and one verbal
comment from adjacent residents as of the writing of this staff report.
The neighbor at 20390 Blauer Drive (left side of property) provided written concerns regarding
traffic, noise, and property values. This neighbor would like a sound wall separating their property
from the subject property. This neighbor would also like to minimize the front exit and entrance.
Staff spoke with this neighbor who reiterated their concerns regarding noise and traffic generated by
parents dropping off and picking up their children.
The neighbor at 20483 Tricia Way (behind property) provided written concerns regarding traffic
drop off/pick up of children in the parking lot at the back of the property. Staff spoke with this
neighbor who also voiced concerns regarding the playground in the front of the property and the
potential traffic delays caused by queuing of vehicles along Blauer Drive which is a single lane road
that provides access to a larger shopping center, other commercial uses, and a residential
neighborhood. This neighbor has since sent an email to staff which is included in Attachment 3.
6
The neighbor at 20480 Blauer Drive (right side of property) contacted staff by phone with concerns
regarding traffic circulation near the proposed day care facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application as proposed because the
applicant would not agree to a Peer Review of the Traffic Study and staff cannot therefore
confirm the validity of the Traffic Study.
Alternatively, the Planning Commission could continue the project to allow the applicant to pay
fees necessary for peer review of the traffic study. Staff recommendations regarding the number
of students allowed would be primarily based on results of the traffic study and peer review
recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Denial.
2. Newspaper Notice, Mailed Notice, Address Labels
3. Neighborhood Notification
4. Site Access, Circulation and Parking Study by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A”.
6. Fire Department comments, Exhibit "B”.
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT
Application # CUP 09-0004
Alex Du Von; 20398 Blauer Drive
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the
above-described application:
I. Project Summary
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Use Permit for the
Project shown in Exhibit "A" date stamped September 24, 2009, incorporated by this reference. The
proposed use is a day care facility in the Professional Administrative (PA) zoning district. The use
would be located in an existing 5,000 square foot building formerly occupied by office uses. As
proposed, the facility would have five (5) employees and provide services for 56 students. The
property has 14 available parking spaces. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. The foregoing use will be described as the “Project” in this Resolution.
II. Use Permit Requirement
City Code Sections 15-55.010 and 15-18.030(f) require a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning
Commission for any day care facility in the Professional Administrative (PA) zoning district.
III. Planning Commission Review
On October 14, 2009 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project,
CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentation from the Applicant and the public, and all
testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
IV. Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects which a public
agency rejects or disapproves, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3,
Article 19, Section 15270(a).
V. Use Permit Findings
The Applicant’s Project has not met the burden of proof to support the Findings required for
approval of a Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as set forth below:
2
Application No. CUP 09-0004; 20398 Blauer Drive
The proposed conditional use will [not] adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood, or will [not] adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof. Staff is unable to make this Finding. A Traffic Study, dated June 18, 2009 indicates that
existing parking on site can accommodate 40 students; however the applicant has proposed services
for 56 students. Moreover, a Peer Review has not been completed for the project to validate the
adequacy and appropriateness of the assumptions used for the project analysis and
recommendations. Given the site’s parking deficiency, parking and traffic by parents would
potentially spillover into the adjacent neighborhood and properties.
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. Staff is unable to make this
Finding. Day Care Facilities are not allowed as of right in the Professional Administrative (PA)
zoning district. The number of available parking spaces is not in proportion to the number of
students proposed for the Day Care Facility and therefore the proposed use is too intensive for the
proposed location.
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. Staff is unable to make this Finding.
Finding #1 demonstrates why this finding cannot be made.
The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga
Municipal Code. Staff is unable to make this Finding. Per the Traffic Study dated June 18 2009, the
site does not currently have adequate parking available to serve the project.
VI. Project Denial
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, Traffic Study, and
other materials and exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter,
Application No. CUP 09-0010 for a Use Permit for a daycare center is denied.
3
Application No. CUP 09-0004; 20398 Blauer Drive
DENIED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 14th day of October 2009 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Yan Zhao
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
John F. Livingstone, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and
agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in
this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.
__________________________________ ____________________________
Applicant Date
__________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
fire
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Telephone: 408-867-9001 Fax: 408-867-1330 www.saratogafire.org
Plan Review Transmittal for Planning Department
File #: CUP 09-0004
Plan Log #: 09-1242
Date: May 27, 2009
# of Lots: one
Applicant: Saratoga Day Care Center/Von
Location: 20398 Blauer Drive
Project: tenant improvement of a approximately 5,000 sq ft commercial building for a day care center. This
tenant improvement constitues a change of use of the building.
1. Property is not located in a designated Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) area.
2. Page A0 describes the building construction type as V-III 1 hr which is not a valid construction type per
2007 CBC. Clarify the building construction type and if applicant claims the building is 1 hour rated
construction provide evidence of said rating as this office has no record of this building being 1 hour
rated construction. Presently the building has no automatic fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems installed.
3. Per 2007 California Fire Code (CFC) and 2007 California Building Code (CBC) the occupancy
classification for this use is Educational Group E-Day Care, the use of a building or structure, or portion
thereof, for educational, supervision or persoanl care services for more than six children older than 2 and
a half years of age shall be classified as an E occupancy.
4. Per 2007 CFC 907.2.3: Group E, a manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be installed in Group E
occupancies with an occupant load of 50 or more persons or containing more than one classroom or one
or more rooms used for day care purpose. An Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained. The alarm contractor shall submit three (3) copies of working drawings to the fire district
for review and approval. The alarm system must be installed by a licensed contractor. The fire district
must issue a permit prior
5. Provide exits signs per 2007 CBC Chapter 10 Means of Egress.
to the installation of the system (City of Saratoga Code 16-60).
6. Provide portable fire extinguishers minimum 2A-10BC at minimum 75 feet of travel per CCR Title 19.
7. Page A3 indicates a kitchen area with range and hood. Applicant is to contact Santa Clara County
Department of Health to determine if any permits are required from that department for the cooking
operations in the kitchen area. If County Health determines that the kitchen hood system be equipped as
a Class 1 hood for grease laden vapors then an approved fire protection system for the hood shall be
required. If no permits are required by County Health, then no hood fire protection system shall be
required. Applicant is to communicate in writing to Saratoga Fire of the determination by County
Health.
8. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the
property (2007 CFC 505).
APPROVED: HAL NETTER
PLAN CHECKER: HAL NETTER