HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2008 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE : Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
T YPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Manny
Cappello
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 2008
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF:
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 16, 2008
REPORT OF APPEAL R IGHTS:
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).
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 #PDR08-0025 (503-24-046) – THE INN AT SARATOGA, 20645 Fourth Street - The
applicant requests Design Review approval for a 2,052 square foot addition to the west elevation of the
existing five story Inn at Saratoga. The project will include a new meeting room on the fourth floor
totaling 1,066 square feet and two additional guest rooms on the fifth floor totaling 2,052 square feet. The
lot is 29,839 gross square feet in size and is zoned CH-1. (Christopher Riordan)
2. APPLICATION #CUP08-0007 (386-01-008) – Wu/Kwei, 19888 Prospect Road - The applicant is
requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Day Care Facility in an existing building in the
commercial-visitor zoning district. The site is located on Prospect Road, approximately 250 feet east of
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The Day Care Facility will occupy 1,500 square-feet of the existing 2,500
square-foot building. The proposed Day Care Facility would serve up to 30 students with 3 employees and
operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. There are approximately 8-10 parking spaces to
serve the proposed use and the existing 1,000 square-foot dental office. (Cynthia McCormick)
1
3. APPLICATION #CUP 08-0011 (386-01-027) – Lai/Kwok, 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - The
applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Day Care Facility in an existing building in the
commercial-visitor (C-V) zoning district. The site is located at the corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and
Prospect Road. The Day Care Facility will occupy an existing vacant 5,527 square-foot building. The
proposed Day Care Facility would serve up to 60 students with 7 employees and operate Monday through
Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. There are 38 shared parking spaces to serve the proposed use. (Cynthia
McCormick)
DIRECTORS ITEM:
- Letters from St. Michael's Church and neighbors.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
-
COMMUNICATIONS
-
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, November 12, 2008 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 October 16,
2008, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
2
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2008
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
Absent: None
Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Contract Planner
Heather Bradley and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of September 24, 2008.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz,
the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 24,
2008, were adopted. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Nagpal 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 October 2, 2008.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Cappello 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.
3
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 2
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #CUP08-0009 (503-68-007) MILLER, 14098 Palomino Way: The applicant
requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a generator to provide an
emergency backup supply for an existing single-family residence. The generator is to be
located adjacent to the north side of the residence of an existing concrete patio. The
generator will be surrounded by a wood enclosure that would screen the generator from view
as well as provide noise reduction. The lot is 54,075 gross square feet in size and zoned R-1-
40,000. (Chris Riordan)
Mr. Chris Riordan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Reported that a revised resolution has been distributed with an added Finding D.
· Distributed a color board for the generator enclosure for review.
· Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a natural gas powered generator to
provide emergency back up power for an existing single-family home.
· Added that this generator would be located on the left side with a 55-foot setback from the
side property line A 7.5-foot tall wood and concrete enclosure would be constructed to
screen this generator from view. The materials and colors would be the same as for the
house.
· Informed that the allowable decibel level during the daytime is 60 and 45 at night. This unit
operates at 48.5 decibels as tested
· Advised that the Ordinance allows the noise level to exceed standard when used during
emergencies.
· Recommended approval.
Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Kirby Miller, Applicant:
· Said that he had nothing to add to the staff report.
· Asked for approval.
Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit
approval to allow the installation of an emergency backup generator for an
existing single-family residence on property located at 14098 Palomino
Way, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
***
4
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #PDR07-0008 (389-25-012) BRENNAN, 18606 Lyons Court: The applicant
requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single-story residence.
The proposal includes an approximately 594 square foot second-story addition and a 251
square foot first floor addition to the existing 2,189 square foot residence (including garage).
The total proposed floor area would be approximately 3,034 square feet (including garage).
The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The
maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 60 percent of the net site area.
The lot size is 8,150 square feet and located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Design Review
approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Heather
Bradley)
Ms. Heather Bradley, Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Outlined corrections to the draft resolution as follows:
o Under the fourth whereas clause, “…after approval and is consistent with the Saratoga
General Plan including the following policies.”
o Under the fifth whereas clause, “…Section 15-45.080 and the City Residential Design
Handbook have been determined.”
o Condition 6 – “…maximum extent reasonably possible.”
o Condition 6 – on the second to last line replace “City” with “Community Development
Director.”
o Condition 12 – on the first line, “the entire City Arborist reports.”
o Condition 13 – on the first line, replace “attached” with “the September 19, 2008, map.”
o Condition 18, Item C – on the second line, “I recommend placing place mulch.”
o Correct numbering after 18 accordingly.
· Reported that the applicant is asking for Design Review approval for a 587 square foot
second-story addition to an existing 2,189 square foot residence. The first floor would be
increased by 260 square feet.
· Reminded that the Commission first heard this item on May 14, 2008. The Commission
shared concerns raised by neighbors that the project was not consistent with Design
Review findings on mass, bulk and privacy. The applicant requested a continuance to a
study session.
· Added that three study sessions were held in June, July and August. At the August study
session, the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant take their revised
project back to public hearing.
· Reported that staff has determined that all required Design Review findings can be made.
· Added that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
· Recommended approval.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed to an October 7th letter referring to a deficiency in the proposed
second story setback. She asked staff if the proposed setback meets requirements.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. She added that second stories are required to meet an
additional five-foot setback from the first floor. In this case, the area referred to is inaccessible
5
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 4
attic area that is not considered first floor space. Therefore, this meets the first floor
requirement and the second floor also meets setback requirements.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for the average lot size in the area. Is it R-1-10,000?
Planner Heather Bradley replied correct.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for verification that this particular lot is approximately 8,000
square feet.
Planner Heather Bradley replied correct.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for the general lot size on Lyons Court.
Planner Heather Bradley said that a majority of the lots on Lyons Court are less than 10,000
square feet in size although one at the back of the Court may be 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Planner Heather Bradley how the square footage calculations
are made.
Planner Heather Bradley explained that there is a formula that represents a sliding scale
based on lot size.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for the height of the corner house.
Planner Heather Bradley said that she believed it was 18-feet tall at the peak.
Commissioner Kumar mentioned the letter handed out at the site visit that contained a line
drawing. He asked if that exhibit had been verified.
Planner Heather Bradley said that she had not confirmed that exhibit.
Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the height calculation on that letter is different from
staff’s and asked why that might be.
Planner Heather Bradley said that she does not know where that particular number came
from. She added that height is calculated from grade level.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if grade level might be lower than the finished concrete.
Planner Heather Bradley said right. She added that one takes an average calculation. She
reminded that this property has a slight slope to it.
Commissioner Hlava asked for verification that the story poles are essentially where the
house is going to be located.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes.
6
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 5
Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. Tom Brennan, Applicant and Property Owner, 18605 Lyons Court:
· Thanked staff and the Planning Commission.
· Advised that his wife, Sheila, and architect, Ron Heikes, are also present.
· Explained that he and his wife have two children, a small business and extended family.
They enjoy entertaining.
· Reported that they wish to expand and modernize their existing home.
· Pointed out that they have made multiple revisions to their design. Today it consists of a
587 square foot second story addition and an approximately 300 square foot first floor
addition. The complete home would consist of 3,036 square feet including the garage.
The maximum roof height would be 21 feet, 11 inches.
· Added that their project will result in their impervious coverage meeting Code standards.
· Said that this is a Craftsman-style home with the second floor being one-forth the size of
the ground floor. Said that the material board shows use of horizontal wood siding, gables
and stone veneer accents at the base.
· Stated that they would adopt the latest in green building techniques as listed.
· Said that their landscaping plan will enhance the environment by bringing it up to Code as
to impervious coverage and by adding two oak trees and other native landscaping.
· Described the time line for their project as follows:
o First, they have lived in their home for seven years.
o Upon submittal of plans, their neighbors solicited a petition drive against their project.
Signatures for 18 homes were obtained in opposition.
o Stated that in response, he contacted 58 neighbors to explain their project and
welcomed their feedback.
o Advised that five of the 18 original signers of the petition have since rescinded their
opposition.
o Reminded that this project was discussed at a public hearing held in May. A
continuance was requested to move into a study session format because of the nature
of the findings to the original design.
o Advised that subsequent to this hearing, they met with neighbors, the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission at three study sessions over the last six
months.
o Stated that input from the neighbors was welcomed. Neighbors’ concerns were voiced
in a manner that would help them to reach compromise.
· Reported that they have achieved a new design, which addresses the concerns and
findings previously brought forth.
· Said that three areas of concern had been raised. 1) the walls of the second story were
bulky and jutted up in the view of adjacent neighbors from the sides and rear of our project
2) it was also a concern that second story windows may impact privacy of neighbors’
yards on the sides and rear of our property; 3) lastly, although the concept of a second
story was deemed acceptable in principle, it was recommended that we explore alternative
designs and try to minimize the second story.
7
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 6
· Advised that the current design addresses all of the past findings. The current design
looks like a one-story house on three sides and the front looks like a 1.5-story house
because of the way that the walls and windows are tucked beneath the roof.
· Said that the rear and side windows have been removed from the second story and the
rear and side walls have been minimized.
· Assured that these changes remedy the findings from the previous model.
· Showed comparable renderings between the original and current design as seen from the
rear of the house where there are no longer any second story windows or walls. It looks
like a one-story house as seen from the back.
· Reiterated that there have been three study sessions with participation by the Planning
Commissioners and neighbors. There have been four design changes and three sets of
story poles put up.
· Stated that the roof peak height is now almost two feet lower and four feet lower than the
allowable maximum height under Saratoga Code.
· Said that now the second floor has only two bedrooms rather than three and one bathroom
rather than two. The total square footage of the upstairs was reduced by 35 percent.
· Said that they have added square footage downstairs without impacting their landscaping.
· Advised that the ratio of first to second floor is now at one quarter.
· Informed that there are 87 homes on the neighborhood grid and he contacted 58 owners in
person. Of those, 13 remain in opposition from the original petition signers. Five have
rescinded their opposition. Twenty-seven have signed letters of support and 18 are either
neutral or provided no response. Now only 22 percent of the neighbors remain opposed.
· Pointed out that there is precedence for two-stories in our neighborhood. In fact, 18
percent are two-story. There are several two-story homes within six parcels of their own
· Said that there are six criteria per the Design Review Handbook. One is trees and
landscaping. Currently there are three large trees. At one point it had been suggested
that they remove a very large tree from their front yard and build their addition out at the
front of the house. This is a very large tree in good condition. This tree will outlast all of us
in this room tonight.
· Pointed out that the design makes this home look like it is a one-story.
· Questioned the basis of how design guidelines are interpreted. His project is low density,
maintains existing landscaping, provides openness of yards and maintains a low profile
and height.
· Stated that this design represents a reasonable compromise and said that they took great
effort to reach a compromise.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for what length does the maximum 21-foot height run. Is it the
entire ridgeline?
Mr. Tom Brennan replied yes.
Planner Heather Bradley said it is 43 feet.
Commissioner Nagpal said that it appears that the immediate neighbors are the ones not in
support. She asked when the example two-story was constructed.
8
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 7
Ms. Sheila Brennan said it was between 13 and 15 years ago according to neighbors.
Commissioner Nagpal said that most two-story homes run along the creek.
Ms. Sheila Brennan disagreed and provided some locations that did not back to a creek.
Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern about the proposed use of Navajo White as the
main paint color.
Chair Cappello asked the Brennans if their color board is accurate.
Ms. Sheila Brennan said that the body color is a sand color that looks somewhat grey as seen
on the color board. The trim would be rust and green.
Chair Cappello asked staff when the initial submittal was made for this project.
Planner Heather Bradley said that it was in August 2007.
Chair Cappello asked when the first public hearing was held.
Planner Heather Bradley said May 2008.
Mr. Steve Allen, Resident on Lyons Court:
· Advised that he continues to oppose the scheme of this design as proposed by the
Brennans.
· Reported that a solar specialist has advised him that his garage roof can accommodate
seven solar panels that will generate one-third of the capacity available to his house.
However, if the Brennans were allowed to build according to their latest proposal, this
section of roof would be shaded, particularly during the winter months.
· Added that this proposed roof height would create 10 percent shading factor for his house
and will take away from his kilowatt production.
· Stated that this proposed remodel violates the second story setback requirements
(currently 9 feet) as six feet or less is what is proposed.
· Said that the use of an interior wall to measure the setback is deceptive.
· Said that he researched his neighborhood and there are no second story homes on a court
that backs another court. This would be an unprecedented move.
· Expressed appreciation for the Commission’s time.
Mr. Ned Nedderostek, Resident on Aspesi Drive:
· Stated his objection to this proposal.
· Described his property as being the second house west of Lyons Court.
· Said that he has been in this home for 50 years and intends to stay there until they “bury
me.”
· Expressed objection to the blocking of his view to the east as seen from his backyard and
living room. Instead they would be forced to look at a “ski slope” roof.
· Said that a two-story just does not blend into this neighborhood.
9
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 8
Mr. AG Salahieh, Resident on Metler Court:
· Said that his father resides on Metler Court.
· Thanked the Commission for their work.
· Reported that only a few feet separate their pool from the Brennan home. The Brennans’
new second floor height would block the morning sun.
· Advised that these homes are close and they share fences with five neighbors.
· Said that this project is a bad example and sets precedent.
· Added that he cannot trust the Brennans not to retrofit the back of their second story with
windows some time in the future.
Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Salahieh the height of the back fence.
Mr. AG Salahieh said that it was approximately nine-feet tall including lattice.
Commissioner Rodgers asked where the photographer was standing when the picture Mr.
Salahieh provided was taken.
An unidentified woman advised that she took the photograph for Mr. Salahieh standing near
the window to the laundry room or next to the patio furniture.
Ms. Bernice Keeble, Resident on Lyons Court:
· Stated that her opinion has not changed.
· Said that the proposed front elevation is too overpowering and bulky. The rear elevation
has too much roof, is too high and is too unattractive.
· Added that the southern elevation is really ugly with an unattractive profile.
· Identified herself as a fourth generation resident of the Santa Clara Valley with 50 years as
a resident of Saratoga.
· Clarified that she never agreed to support a second story nor changed her mind later to
support one.
· Urged denial.
Ms. Camille Luckadoo, Resident on Aspesi Drive:
· Said that she lives across the street and continues to oppose this request due to views and
privacy impacts on her neighbors.
· Added that the proposal violates setback requirements.
· Suggested that the increase in height violates Code.
· Advised that in 2006, the City denied her design and that this proposal should be rejected
on the same grounds.
· Pointed out that the lot size figures provided by the applicant have changed and should not
have.
· Stated that the story poles are inadequate and no orange netting was used. They only
installed some sort of green material at the ridgeline.
· Asked the Commission to please reject this project.
· Thanked the Commission for its time invested in volunteering to serve the community.
10
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 9
Ms. Mary Costanza, Resident on Lyons Court:
· Advised that she has lived on Lyons Court for 33 years or since September 1975 and has
been very happy until now.
· Stated her opposition to this second-story design that would diminish the small view of the
mountains left to see. This second story would impede the vista.
· Added that this view means a lot to her.
Ms. Dierdre Dunnion, Resident on Lyons Court:
· Thanked the Commission for its hard work and patience.
· Explained that she has a four-year design degree.
· Opined that this design is not compatible in bulk or height.
· Described the neighborhood as being very attractive and well maintained where previous
additions made to homes have been compatible.
· Stated that this proposal cannot meet the bulk, height or architectural integrity
requirements for approval.
· Said that some findings have not been made.
· Declared this to have been a draining experience for this neighborhood.
Ms. Judy Walls, Resident on Lyons Court:
· Said that she has resided here since 1974.
· Pointed out that houses here are in an aging state while vegetation is mature.
· Stated that it is her interest to modify and improve her own property with an opportunity to
go upwards.
· Added that she would like to maintain the ability to do that, which is not likely if the
Brennans are not allowed to do their addition despite their many compromises.
· Advised that she welcomes the approval of this addition.
Mr. Paul Summers, Resident on Aspersi Court:
· Said that he is not directly affected but rather indirectly.
· Informed that he just did an extensive remodel of his home.
· Stated that it is human nature to resist change but neighborhoods change even without
renovation being done to homes.
· Pointed out that just the normal growth of his neighbors’ trees has reduced the amount of
sky he can see when using his telescope to view the stars.
· Stated that he is supportive of the Brennans who are trying to do what is best for their
family while accommodating their neighbors.
Mr. Ron Heikes, Project Architect:
· Said that they are willing to do a solar study to rebut the data provided by the neighbor.
The only impacts might be during the winter or in the late afternoon.
· Said that the existing 65-foot tall tree eclipses this addition. There is already no view of the
mountain.
· Added that the lot size changing from 8,450 to 8,150 is simply his typographical error and
not deliberate. He added that it is a moot point anyway.
· Pointed out that there are no criteria for story poles.
11
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 10
· Advised that the Brennans installed three sets of story poles just to accommodate this
neighborhood and not because they had to do so.
· Stated that the sketch provided by one neighbor is inadequate.
Srivazj Ramaswami, Resident on Aspesi:
· Said that he would see a large home.
· Expressed concern for the potential of future installation of windows at the back elevation
in the event that there might be a different owner.
· Stated his objection to this project
Mr. Tom Brennan, Applicant:
· Said that a solar study was prepared.
· Added that Camille’s schematic is incorrect.
· Stated that the second floor setback assumptions are incorrect.
· Advised that throughout this process he had thought that a compromise might be possible.
· Reminded that homeowners have the right to build up and this design is reasonable.
· Pointed out that remedies to the original concerns raised have been reached.
· Reiterated that this neighborhood is not zoned against second stories.
· Suggested that a win-win situation could be achieved through compromise.
· Added that they are happy with the current compromise that has resulted in a respectful
design that meets the City’s guidelines.
Ms. Sheila Brennan, Applicant:
· Reminded that this is the fourth design.
· Thanked the Commission for its time and attention to this project.
· Assured that they have worked to address bulk, height and neighborhood compatibility
issues raised.
· Pointed out that the upstairs would contain just two kids’ bedrooms.
· Said that this design has been created to meet their family’s needs.
· Added that she is personally excited about this design.
· Expressed acknowledgement of the neighbors’ rights to fight for what they believe in but
said she too has that right.
Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to verify if the violation to setbacks as claimed is correct.
Planner Heather Bradley replied no.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the non-conformance use reference applies here.
Planner Heather Bradley explained that this is a substandard lot so percentage-based
setbacks apply. All parts of the addition do meet requirements.
Commissioner Nagpal asked whether modification to an existing non-conforming structure
means that the entire structure needs to meet current guidelines.
12
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 11
Director John Livingstone:
· Explained that it is typical for staff to see garages that don’t meet the depth, length or width
required under current Code.
· Added that typically, staff would not require any modifications to a garage. The Code
requires a two-car garage and the Brennans have a functional existing two-car garage.
· Continued to say that the impact of an addition to this home does not intensify the use of
this existing two-car garage.
· Stated that if this existing garage was just a one-car garage and the home was being
increased by 50 percent or more, staff would look at increasing that one-car garage into a
two-car garage.
· Concluded by saying that in this instance, the existing two-car garage is just a few inches
short on one side and does not represent intensification.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is not considered the expansion of a non-conforming use.
Director John Livingstone replied no.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the consideration of the finding for minimizing perception of
bulk intends to refer not just to the immediate area but also with the surrounding region.
Planner Heather Bradley replied correct.
Chair Cappello asked if nothing is unique with this project regarding this finding.
Planner Heather Bradley replied no.
Commissioner Nagpal said that while in the report it references other homes in the
neighborhood, the larger neighborhood and/or region could also be considered.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes.
Commissioner Hlava:
· Stated that she was not in favor of the original design.
· Added that the real issues for the particular addition were unreasonable interference with
views and privacy as well as excessive bulk and height.
· Said that she could not make the findings for views and privacy the last time but that the
new design rectifies a lot of that concern.
· Pointed out that the standard is not “no impacts.” The standard is “unreasonable” impacts.
This is not an unreasonable impact so she said she could now make that finding.
· Questioned the perception of excessive bulk by pointing out that in this neighborhood there
are a fair number of two-story houses.
· Stated that neighborhoods are changing. This neighborhood has original neighbors who
have stayed for years and the neighborhood has stayed exactly the same.
· Added that today’s young families need different homes.
13
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 12
· Reminded that two-stories with up to 26-feet in height are allowed and this proposal is at a
22-feet maximum height.
· Stated that she cannot say that this house has the perception of excessive bulk. Instead
its bulk and height are compatible with this neighborhood.
· Advised that she would vote to approve this request. The Brennans have worked hard and
tried to work with neighbors.
· Expressed her hope that when all this is over these neighbors will be able to get back
together.
Commissioner Nagpal:
· Said that she echoes that sentiment of hope.
· Reminded that Design Review is done on a case-by-case basis on the merit of individual
design. It is not about a second story but rather about required Design Review findings.
· Advised that she started with the same concerns on views/privacy, perception of bulk and
height and consistency of bulk.
· Stated that the lot size is the root cause as well as having two courts that back each other.
This makes the privacy/view impacts finding difficult to make.
· Announced her trouble with making Findings D and E so she is unable to support this
request.
Commissioner Rodgers:
· Reminded that two-story homes are a permitted use in Saratoga unless a one-story
overlay is imposed on a particular area.
· Reiterated that Code has always allowed second story additions. However, where one
house is the first in a neighborhood to go to a second story, they have to have a superb
design.
· Pointed out that this house has more of a 1.5-story design.
· Gave as an example when Dorchich Court was transitioning from a single-story
neighborhood and the 1.5-story format was used in that transition.
· Advised that she was opposed to the original design.
· Said that neighbors’ concerns have been accommodated by scaling the project back, deep
cuts with the second story being reduced to just 25-percent of the first floor and the first
floor basically being retained on the same pad.
· Said that the trend is that kids play outside less today and people want larger homes for
their families.
· Said that the architect and the Brennans have addressed issues raised by neighbors.
· Recognized the need to distinguish between “unreasonable” and “no” impacts. The
Brennans have done their best to minimize impacts. The neighbors did not want windows
overlooking them so they got a sloped roof instead.
· Said that the setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood.
· Expressed concern about the use of Navajo white and suggested a more muted or soft
color to help minimize any appearance of bulk and to better blend in.
· Advised that she can make the findings to support this application.
Commissioner Kumar:
14
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 13
· Commended the Brennans for their efforts and participation in multiple study sessions.
They worked extensively with the Planning Department and provided multiple designs.
· Added that privacy issues have dissipated and are significantly better now.
· Pointed out that the Brennans incorporated suggestions from neighbors and reduced the
height from 24 to 22 feet. They have gone to extra lengths.
· Stated that this is a very special neighborhood with lots of character. He disagreed that it
was a neighborhood in transition and pointed out that there are not too many two-story
homes around this specific home.
· Agreed that the problem is with the lot size being just 8,150 square feet with a 3,500
square foot home on it.
· Said that the other nearby two-story homes back up to the creek.
· Advised that he cannot make the Design Review findings due to excessive bulk and
height.
Commissioner Zhao:
· Thanked the applicants and architect for their compromises including removing windows
from the rear and side elevations and reducing the overall height.
· Advised that having a 43-foot long ridgeline at the 22-foot height seems bulky to her and
increases the perception of bulk.
· Said that she would not support this application.
Commissioner Kundtz:
· Thanked all concerned for their intellectual and emotional participation.
· Stated that Findings A, D and E require judgments on the Commission’s part.
· Agreed that the impacts standard must be evaluated as “unreasonable.”
· Advised that he is unable to make Findings D and E and will not support this project.
Chair Cappello:
· Advised that he can make all findings.
· Commended the applicants and their architect.
· Pointed out that the neighbors would never be satisfied as long as there is a second story.
· Suggested that there is a breakdown in the process. This applicant first applied in August
2007. A public hearing was held in May 2008. Three study sessions were held during the
summer and four revisions to the plan were prepared. At the last study session a straw
poll was held and the applicant was encouraged to bring their project back to public
hearing.
· Added that it was his expectation that after that last study session there was a good
chance of passing here today.
· Stated that another continuance is not appropriate at this time and suggested that it was
time to take a vote.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz,
the Planning Commission DENIED without prejudice the Design Review
application (Application #PDR07-0008) to add a second floor to an existing
single-story residence and an addition to the existing 2,189 square foot
15
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 14
residence (including garage) on property located at 18606 Lyons Court, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao
NOES: Cappello, Hlava and Rodgers
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Cappello reminded the applicants that the appeal period is 15 calendar days from
tonight’s action.
***
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 Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Cappello
adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
16
REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Application No./Location: PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Type of Application: Design Review and Modification to an Existing
Conditional Use Permit with a Variation from
Standards for an Addition to the “The Inn at Saratoga”
Owner: The Inn at Saratoga, Incorporated
Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, Senior Planner
Meeting Date: October 22, 2008
APN: 503-24-046 Department Head:
John Livingstone, AICP
20645 Fourth Street
17
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 2 of 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT HISTORY:
Application filed: 07/22/08
Application complete: 09/30/08
Notice published: 10/08/08
Mailing completed: 10/04/08
Posting completed: 10/16/08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval and Conditional Use Permit with a
Variation from Standards to add a 1,066 square foot conference room to the existing
fourth floor and 986 square feet to the existing fifth floor to add two new guest rooms to
the Inn at Saratoga (The Project). Design Review approval is required because the
applicant is proposing an addition of over 500 square feet to an existing commercial
structure per Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-46.020(2). A Conditional Use Permit
with a Variation from Standards is required because the applicant is proposing to expand
a hotel, which is a conditionally permitted use in the CH-1 (Historic Commercial) zoning
district, and to exceed the maximum allowable building height by two feet. The Inn at
Saratoga is located on a 29,839 (gross)/20,929 (net) square foot parcel adjacent to
Saratoga Creek.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review and Conditional
Use Permit applications with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached
Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval.
18
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 3 of 10
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: CH-1, Historic Commercial
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
MEASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 29,839 (gross) / 20,929 (net)
SLOPE: Approximately 18.0 %.
GRADING REQUIRED: None
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, consisting of a 2,052 square
foot addition to the existing Inn at Saratoga, is Categorically Exempt from the
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 Exemption
“Existing Facilities”. This exemption applies to additions to existing structures that would
not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the
addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less.
MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors would include tan colored wood siding, a
brown ceramic tile roof with a wood shake appearance, and vinyl windows with a black
finish. Colors and materials would match the existing structure. A colors and materials
board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be present
at the site visit and public hearing.
Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification #
Windows Vinyl. Bronze Anodized
w/black finish Milgard Single Hung
Roof Ceramic-Simulated Shake
Tile/Brown Colored Pro-Tex
Siding Hardboard Siding/Tan Colored Weyerhaeuser – Channel
Rustic ½” lap siding
19
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 4 of 10
PROJECT DATA:
CH-1 Zoning
Net Site Area: .48 acres
Proposed Required
Site Coverage
Maximum Allowable
80% (16,717 sq. ft.)
Existing building footprint,
parking area, and walkways
Proposed Addition
Total
14,905 SF (71%)
1,066 SF
15,971 SF (76%)
Square Footage of Hotel
Maximum Allowable
Municipal Code
Section 15-19
(Commercial
Districts) does not
include a limitation on
maximum floor area
Existing First Story:
6,635 SF
Existing Second Story: 6,290 SF
Existing Third Story: 6,290 SF
Existing Fourth Story: 6,463 SF
Existing Fifth Story:
Proposed Fourth Story Addition:
Proposed Fifth Story Addition:
5,936 SF
1,066
986
TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 33,666 SF
Setbacks Roof would encroach
2’-9” into City right-of-
way (public parking
area) for a length of
approximately 62 feet
A condition of project
approval has been
added requiring the
issuance of an
encroachment permit
from the Public Works
Department for the
roof to be constructed
over the City’s right-
of-way
The CH-1 Zone District Does
Not Specify Minimum Building
Setbacks
Height of Addition
Maximum Height =
518.50 (35Feet)
Lowest Elevation Point: 469.00
Highest Elevation Point: 520.50
Average Elevation Point: 483.50
Proposed Topmost Point: 520.50 (37 Feet)
20
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 5 of 10
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Project Description
The Inn at Saratoga, located in the Village, is situated on a sloping lot such that the elevation
facing Big Basin Way has two stories, and the rear elevation facing Saratoga Creek has five
stories. A Santa Clara Valley Water District Easement runs along the rear of the parcel.
The Inn at Saratoga was constructed approximately 21 years ago. It features a “Country Inn”
architectural style with a brown-colored mansard roof and tan-colored wood horizontal
siding. The applicant is proposing a horizontal extension of the existing two story elevation
that faces Big Basin Way adjacent to the city parking lot. A 1,066 square foot fourth story
addition (the ground floor as viewed from Big Basin Way) would be used for a conference
room and a 986 square foot fifth story addition (the second floor as viewed from Big Basin
Way) would be used to construct two new guest rooms and a small office. The addition is
designed to match the architectural style, colors, and materials of the existing hotel.
As proposed the project would include wood awnings over the four lower windows of the
addition. Staff mentioned to the applicant that this type of wood awning is not used on the
existing building and therefore would not be compatible with the existing design. The
applicant was in accordance with staff’s opinion and agreed that the building would look
better without the wood awnings. A condition of approval has been added which requires
the plans submitted for building permit to not include these awnings.
Building Height
The Inn at Saratoga was originally constructed as a five story building, two stories facing
Big Basin Way and five stories facing Saratoga Creek. The Municipal Code has changed
since the project was originally constructed and now limits buildings in the CH-1 district to
35 feet in height with a maximum of two stories facing Big Basin Way and three stories
facing Saratoga Creek.
Building height is measured from average grade. As constructed, the height of the existing
hotel is approximately 41 feet tall. The height of the proposed new addition (also measured
from average grade) would be approximately 37 feet, two feet taller than maximum 35 foot
height in the CH-1 district. However, the height of the addition as measured from the
adjacent grade on the uphill elevation would be 25.5 feet and would not exceed two stories
in height. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve a Variation from
Standards for an additional two feet in height as the elevation facing Big Basin Way would
be limited to two stories, would be three feet shorter than the existing elevation facing Big
Basin Way, and would be consistent with the intention of the Municipal Code.
Building Encroachment
The proposed location of the exterior wall of both the fourth and fifth floor additions
adjacent to the city parking lot would be constructed approximately 6” from the southeast
property line. A mansard roof consistent with the roof forms on the existing hotel would be
constructed above the new addition. The front of the mansard roof as proposed would
21
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 6 of 10
project 2’-9” into the airspace above the city parking lot for a length of approximately 62’.
The applicant is aware that the project encroaches into the city right-of-way and would be
requesting an encroachment permit from the City to allow this to occur. The project
includes a condition of approval that prior to issuance of a building permit; the applicant
applies for and has issued from the Public Works Department an encroachment permit to
allow the building to encroach into City property. This agreement would require City
Council approval.
Trees/Landscaping
The project does not propose to remove any ordinance sized trees. The existing site area
to be used for the addition is landscaped with ornamental plants including five trees, a
small number of shrubs, and a hedge. This landscaping would be removed. There is an
area adjacent to the existing building, to the right of the proposed addition, which is
enclosed with a rod iron fence and is not currently landscaped. This area would provide
an opportunity to replace the landscaping that is removed. Staff has added a condition of
approval that the applicant submits a landscape plan for this area prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Geotechnical Clearance
Geotechnical Clearance was not required for the project.
Energy Efficiency
The projects energy conservation measures would include upgraded floor, wall, and
ceiling insulation, double pane low E windows, and fluorescent lighting. Exterior siding
would be made from recycled wood.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant has shown the project plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached Neighbor
Notification Forms (Attachment #2) and no negative comments were included on these
forms. Staff has received a letter from a property owner on Brookwood Lane (Attachment
#3), on the opposite side of Saratoga Creek, with concerns related to the level of noise
emitted from the hotels existing HVAC system. Staff has both advised the applicant to
contact the neighboring property owner about the noise and have spoken to the neighbor and
explained that the proposed addition was on the opposite side of the building facing them
and that the project did not include modification to the HVAC system.
Economic Benefit
The applicant has stated that the addition of the conference room and two additional guest
rooms is necessary to make the hotel more attractive for group usage. The projected
increase in the number of hotel guests would likely result in increased patronage for both the
stores and restaurants in the Village. A related benefit of additional hotel guests would be
an increase in the amount of Transient Occupancy Tax (currently 10%) that is collected by
the City of Saratoga.
22
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 7 of 10
Parking and Circulation
The project is located within Parking District Number One. The parking ratio within this
district requires one parking space for each 473.5 square feet of gross floor area. The
existing building requires 72 spaces and the addition would require five additional spaces.
The applicant is exempt from providing extra parking spaces for the addition per Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15-35.020(k) which exempts all new projects for altered, enlarged
or new structures deemed complete prior to February 28, 2009 and located in the CH district
from providing off-street parking.
The Village Parking Ordinance exempting new projects from providing onsite parking went
into effect for project applications deemed complete on or after March 1, 2006. This
ordinance identified a parking surplus as of that date to accommodate 41,850 gross square
feet of new development or a change in use over what existed in the Village at that time. A
total of 13,526 of new floor area have been added to the Village since the ordinance was
adopted. As of January 2008, there was 28,324 square feet additional floor area remaining
and the 2,052 square foot proposed addition would reduce this number to 26,272 square feet.
Design Review Criteria
In reviewing the proposed application for Design Review approval, the Planning
Commission shall be guided by the following criteria (Saratoga Municipal Section 15-
46.040):
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the
architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such
features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color, and appurtenances.
The project is consistent with these criteria in that the colors of the exterior walls
and the roofing materials would match those of the existing structure. In
addition, the architectural style, the exterior materials, and the height of the
addition would match that of the existing building.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs
have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be
harmonious in appearance. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the
project does not include additional signage or a change to the existing signage and
therefore this design criterion can be made.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to
be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and
irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in
natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly
spaced. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the existing site is
landscaped with both ornamental and native trees, shrubs, and flowers. The project
would remove five non ordinance size ornamental trees, a small number of non
native shrubs, and a hedge. There is an area adjacent to the existing building, to
the right of the proposed addition that is enclosed with a rod iron fence and
is not currently landscaped. This area would provide an opportunity to replace the
23
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 8 of 10
landscaping that is removed. Staff has added a condition of approval that the
applicant submits a landscape plan for this area prior the issuance of a
building permit.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with natural landscape and be
non-reflective. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the proposed
non-reflective colors of the exterior walls and roofing materials would match those
of the existing building and would blend with the existing landscape.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials
such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No
mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately
screened. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the roof would be
covered with “Class A” ceramic roofing and no new mechanical equipment would
be installed on the roof of the building.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and
design with other structures in the immediate area. The project is consistent
with this criterion in that the addition would match the design of the existing hotel
which is already compatible in terms of height and bulk (Big Basin Elevation), and
design with other structures in the immediate area.
The building addition would not negatively affect the charming ‘country inn’ character of
the existing structure and would therefore be consistent with the Saratoga Village
Guidelines.
Use Permit Findings
A hotel in the CH-1 zoning district is a conditionally permitted use. Expansion of a
conditionally permitted use requires Conditional Use Permit approval from the Planning
Commission. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a
project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. In this case, the applicant
proposes to make building additions that would be used for a conference room and two
additional rooms for guest use. The applicant hopes to attract an increased number of hotel
guests with the addition of the conference room. It is likely that an increased number of
hotel guests would be and economic benefit to businesses in the Saratoga Village.
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district. This
finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed addition would
provide desired amenities that could make the hotel more appealing and therefore
attract an increase number of hotel guests and visitors to Saratoga Village.
The finding to approve the Variation from Standards for two feet of additional
building height can be made in the affirmative in that the elevation facing Big Basin
Way would be limited to two stories, would be three feet shorter than the existing
24
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 9 of 10
elevation facing Big Basin Way, and would be consistent with the intention of the
Municipal Code.
(b) 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: This finding may be made in the affirmative in
that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential
impacts.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this chapter: This finding may be made in the affirmative in that
the existing hotel is a conditionally approved use and that the addition would be
consistent with this use in the CH-1 Commercial Zone District and it has been
determined that the project is in compliance with all applicable development
standards of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-19 (Commercial Districts).
(d) 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:
The project meets this finding in that the design of the addition would match the
architectural style and height of the existing hotel, the new conference room and two
guest rooms would not increase the noise in the vicinity, and the added amenities has
the potential to increase the number of hotel guests which could benefit the Saratoga
Village business owners by bringing more people into the Village.
General Plan Findings
The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies:
Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga
by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project is consistent
with this General Plan Policy in that the proposed building materials would include natural
earth tone colors and would be muted to blend in to the natural bucolic surroundings of the
site.
The visual impact of the project as viewed from offsite is reduced and the rural atmosphere
of the area is maintained since the project would not be increasing the height of the project
as viewed from Big Basin Way and other adjacent streets.
Land Use Element Goal 13 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that
the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings. The project is consistent with this General Plan Goal in that, as
conditioned, the application meets the findings required for Design Approval. The addition
to the hotel is well designed and architecturally and physically compatible with the existing
building, it is not visually massive and the architectural details and features and the use of
25
Application No. PDR08-0025 – 20645 Fourth Street
Page 10 of 10
natural materials are consistent with the “Country Inn” style of the hotel. In addition, the
addition would not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors.
Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure
that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and
the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required
for Design Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed building addition to the Inn at Saratoga complies with all applicable design
criteria contained in Saratoga Municipal Code 15.46.040 and the Saratoga Village
Guidelines. In addition, all the required findings required to grant Conditional Use
Permit with an Exception from Standards can be made in the affirmative.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from
CEQA and approve the application for Design Review and Modification to the Existing
Use Permit with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval.
2. Neighbor Notification templates and comments.
3. Letter from Neighbor on Brookwood Lane.
4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project
notification.
5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A".
26
RESOLUTION NO.
Application Number: PDR08-0025
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Inn at Saratoga, Incorporated
20645 Fourth Street
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit with a Variation from Standards to increase
the maximum building height by two feet, for the construction of a 2,052 square foot fourth
and fifth story addition to the existing 31,614 square foot five story Inn at Saratoga located
in the CH-1 zone district. The height of the addition would be approximately 37 feet; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15-46.020(a)(6) states any new structure, except a
single-family dwelling or accessory structure, having a floor area of one thousand square
feet or greater, located in an R-1 district, requires Design Review approval by the Planning
Commission. The proposal consists of a two story addition with a proposed floor area of
2,052 square feet, therefore, Planning Commission review is required prior to issuance of
building permits; 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 proposed project, consisting of a minor addition to an existing
structure, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301, “Existing Facilities”. This exemption applies to operation, repair,
maintenance, or minor interior or exterior alterations to existing structures; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies:
Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga
by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project is consistent
with this General Plan Policy in that the proposed building materials would include natural
earth tone colors and would be muted to blend in to the natural bucolic surroundings of the
site.
The visual impact of the project as viewed from offsite is reduced and the rural atmosphere
of the area would be maintained since the project would not be increasing the height of the
project as viewed from Big Basin Way and other adjacent streets.
27
Application No. PDR08-0025/20645 Fourth Street – The Inn at Saratoga
2
Land Use Element Goal 13 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that
the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings. The project is consistent with this General Plan Goal in that, as
conditioned, the application meets the findings required for Design Approval. The addition
to the hotel is well designed and architecturally and physically compatible with the existing
building, it is not visually massive and the architectural details and features and the use of
natural materials are consistent with the “Country Inn” style of the hotel. In addition, the
addition would not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors.
Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure
that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and
the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required
for Design Approval.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the
findings required for said application to be issued a Design Review Approval, as set forth
below:
The proposed project is consistent with the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines and with all
the following Design Review findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-
46.040:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the
architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such
features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color, and
appurtenances. The project is consistent with these criteria in that the colors
of the exterior walls and the roofing materials would match those of the existing
structure. In addition, the architectural style, the exterior materials, and the height
of the addition would match that of the existing building.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs
have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be
harmonious in appearance. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the
project does not include additional signage or a change to the existing signage and
therefore this design criterion can be made.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to
be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and
irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in
natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly
spaced. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the existing site is
landscaped with both ornamental and native trees, shrubs, and flowers. The project
would remove five non ordinance size ornamental trees, a small number of non
native shrubs, and a hedge. The project is not proposing any additional
landscaping.
28
Application No. PDR08-0025/20645 Fourth Street – The Inn at Saratoga
3
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with natural landscape and be
non-reflective. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the proposed
non-reflective colors of the exterior walls and roofing materials would match those
of the existing building and would blend with the existing landscape.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials
such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No
mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately
screened. The project is consistent with this criterion in that the roof would be
covered with “Class A” ceramic roofing and no new mechanical equipment would
be installed on the roof of the building.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and
design with other structures in the immediate area. The project is consistent
with this criterion in that the addition would match the design of the existing hotel
which is already compatible in terms of height and bulk (Big Basin Elevation), and
design with other structures in the immediate area.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Conditional Use Permit approval pursuant and the following findings
specified in SMC Section 15-55.070 have been made in the affirmative:
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district. This
finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed addition would
provide desired amenities that could make the hotel more appealing and therefore
attract an increase number of hotel guests and visitors to Saratoga Village.
The finding to approve the Variation from Standards for two feet of additional
building height can be made in the affirmative in that the elevation facing Big Basin
Way would be limited to two stories, would be three feet shorter than the existing
elevation facing Big Basin Way, and would be consistent with the intention of the
Municipal Code.
(b) 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: This finding may be made in the affirmative in
that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential
impacts.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this chapter: This finding may be made in the affirmative in that
the existing hotel is a conditionally approved use and that the addition would be
consistent with this use in the CH-1 Commercial Zone District and it has been
determined that the project is in compliance with all applicable development
standards of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-19 (Commercial Districts)
29
Application No. PDR08-0025/20645 Fourth Street – The Inn at Saratoga
4
(d) 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:
The project meets this finding in that the design of the addition would match the
architectural style and height of the existing hotel, the new conference room and two
guest rooms would not increase the noise in the vicinity, and the added amenities has
the potential to increase the number of hotel guests which could benefit the Saratoga
Village business owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve
as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans
and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the exemption from CEQA is
approved, the required findings are hereby made, and the application for Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit with Variation from Standards is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
STANDARD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS – None
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" dated
October 10, 2008, incorporated by reference. The color and materials of the addition
shall match those of the existing hotel. All changes to the approved plans must be
submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community
Development Director’s approval.
2. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building
Division for the building plan check review process:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page.
b. The following note shall be included on the site plan verifying building setbacks:
“Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record
shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved
plans.”
3. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board date stamped October
10, 2008.
4. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved addition
to the Inn at Saratoga. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, architectural
detailing, shutters, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in
a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for and be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans.
Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade
by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development
Director with payment of appropriate fees.
30
Application No. PDR08-0025/20645 Fourth Street – The Inn at Saratoga
5
5. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use
Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit
to preserve public health, safety, and welfare.
6. Use Permit 01-046, issued to the Inn at Saratoga on February 13, 2002, is hereby
combined and superseded by this new Use Permit.
7. The plans submitted for building permit are not to include wood awnings over the lower
windows of the addition.
8. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan to illuminate the public stairway connecting
the lower parking lot near Wildwood Park to the upper parking lot on Third Street. The
lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Director.
9. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the area to the right of the building
addition that is enclosed with a rod iron fence and is not currently landscaped. This
landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Director.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
10. Applicant shall comply with all the Santa Clara Valley Water District conditions.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
11. Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall apply for and have issued
from the Public Works Department an encroachment permit for the roof to overhang
into the city the city right-of-way. This encroachment permit shall be subject to review
and approval the Saratoga City Council.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
12. Property is located in a designated Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) area (2007 CFC
Chapter 47, note: construction of new buildings located within a WUI shall comply
with 2007 CBC Chapter 7A).
13. Building has existing Early Warning Fire Alarm System. Addition will necessitate
modification and shall require plan review. 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 to the installation of the system (City of Saratoga Code 16-60).
14. Building has existing automatic sprinkler system. Addition will necessitate
modification and shall require plan review. The suppression contractor shall submit
three (3) copies of working drawings and calculations to Saratoga Fire District for
approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor.
CITY ATTORNEY
15. Owner and Applicant agree 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
31
Application No. PDR08-0025/20645 Fourth Street – The Inn at Saratoga
6
City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court,
challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36
months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the
Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California,
this 22nd day of October 2008 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
N OES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Manny Cappello
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
John F. Livingstone, AICP
Secretary, Planning Commission
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have
no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property
Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms
and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions
within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission.
________________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday October 22, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Theater
located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will be held Tuesday October 21, 2008 between 3:30
and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City
Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. and visit the site listed above as well as other sites as part of the standard
Site Visit Committee agenda. The agenda will be available at City Hall or on the City website:
www.saratoga.ca.us. In order to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written
communications should be filed no later than Monday October 13, 2008.
For more information, including details of the above item, please contact Cynthia McCormick: (408)
868-1230; cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us. Planners are available at the public counter 7:30 a.m. - 12:00
noon. City Hall is open 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and every other Friday. A
calendar with Friday office closures is available at City Hall and on the City website: www.saratoga.ca.us.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place.
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.
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
ADDRESS / APN: 19888 Prospect Road / 386-01-008
APPLICANT/OWNER: Christina Wu / Wanjen Kwei
APPLICATION: CUP 08-0007
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Day
Care Facility in an existing building in the commercial-visitor zoning district. The site is located on
Prospect Road, approximately 250 feet east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The Day Care Facility
will occupy 1,500 square-feet of the existing 2,500 square-foot building. The proposed Day Care
Facility would serve up to 30 students with 3 employees and operate Monday through Friday from
7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. There are approximately 8-10 parking spaces to serve the proposed use and
the existing 1,000 square-foot dental office.
48
RESOLUTION NO. _____
Application No. CUP 08-0007
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Resolution of Denial of Conditional Use Permit
Day Care Facility; 19888 Prospect Road
RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATION NO. CUP 08-0007 FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF A
DAY CARE FACILITY AT 19888 PROSPECT ROAD Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for
conditional use permit to operate a day care facility in an existing building located in the
Commercial Visitor district; 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 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).; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has NOT met the burden of proof required to support the findings
for granting said conditional use permit approval, as specified in City Code Section 15-55:
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. Per the Fehr & Peers Review, dated
October 14th, 2008, the proposed shuttle service is likely not a viable option. Given the site’s
parking deficiency and no viable option for pick-up and drop-off of students, 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 commercial-visitor district.
The proposed use is too intensive for the proposed location, given current circulation and parking
configuration. The proposal will create traffic congestion and the number of parking spaces is
not in proportion to the need for the Day Care Facility.
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. Parking is not adequate to support the use and the configuration of the existing parking
lot in the front of the building does not allow safe vehicle maneuverability. There is no existing
sidewalk in front of the property to protect pedestrians from vehicles entering and leaving the
site. Finding #1 also 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 both the Hexagon Traffic
Study dated October 7th, 2008 and the Fehr & Peers Review dated October 14th, 2008, the site
does not currently have adequate parking available to serve the project.
49
RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATION NO. CUP 08-0007 FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF A
DAY CARE FACILITY AT 19888 PROSPECT ROAD Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the required findings for approval can not be
made, and application number CUP 08-0007 for Conditional Use Permit Approval is hereby
denied.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City
Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, this 22nd day of
October 2008 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Manny Cappello
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
__________________________________
John F. Livingstone, AICP
Secretary, Planning Commission
50
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
19888 Prospect Road
Application No./Location: CUP 08-0007 / 19888 Prospect Road
Applicant/Owner: Christina Wu / Wanjen Kwei
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner
Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Facility
Date: October 22, 2008
APN: 386-01-008
Department Head:
John F. Livingstone, AICP
51
CUP 08-0007; 19888 Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 06/05/08
Application complete: 09/29/08
Notice published: 10/07/08
Mailing completed: 10/04/08
Posting completed: 09/30/08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Day Care Facility in an existing
building in the Commercial-Visitor District. The site is located on Prospect Road, approximately 250
feet east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The Day Care Facility will occupy 1,500 square-feet of an
existing 2,500 square-foot building. The proposed Day Care Facility would serve up to 30 students
with 3 employees and operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. There are
approximately 8 parking spaces to serve the proposed use and the existing dental office.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit Application number
CUP 08-0007 and adopt the attached Resolution of Denial.
52
CUP 08-0007; 19888 Prospect Road 3
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: Commercial Visitor (CV)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial (CR)
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 18,590 square feet
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TENANT SPACE: 1,500 Square-Feet
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).
PROJECT DISCUSSION
EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The existing 2,500 square-foot building on the property includes two-suites with two separate uses; a
1,000 square-foot dental office and a 1,500 square-foot Christian Righteousness Education Center.
Land uses surrounding the site are commercial uses to the north and residential uses to the east and
south. A Montessori School is proposed for the vacant building west of the property.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HISTORY
Dental Office: It does not appear that a CUP exists for the Dental Office. However, building permits
for the Dental Office date back to the early 1960s. The commercial-visitor district did not exist at that
time. The Commercial-Visitor District replaced the Commercial-Service district in 1968. Clinics were a
permitted use in the Commercial-Service district. If another new use is approved in the same building,
staff would recommend that the Dental Office be included in the CUP for the entire building.
Christian Righteousness Education Center: The Christian Righteousness Education Center (CREC)
received a conditional use permit on May 8, 2002. Discussions for the original CUP included concerns
regarding parking and circulation. These concerns were addressed by conditioning the project to
arrange an off site pick-up and drop-off solution. At that time, the applicant proposed an Agreement
with the Home of Christ Christian Center, located at 6345 Janary Way in San Jose. Condition #11 of
the Resolution required the applicant to formalize a contract between the Church and the school which
set forth the agreement for joint use of the parking facility. The contract agreement was to be recorded
in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy was to be filed with the City. The City does
not have evidence of this Agreement. Based on several weekday site visits by staff, the building is not
being actively used by CREC.
53
CUP 08-0007; 19888 Prospect Road 4
Day Care Facility: The applicant is proposing to share the space currently occupied by the Christian
Righteousness Education Center. Details of the proposed use are described further in this Staff Report.
EMPLOYEES/STUDENTS
Dental Office: The Dental Office currently operates with 5 employees, including a receptionist, the
office manager, two dental assistants, and one Dentist.
Christian Righteousness Education Center: Per the existing CUP, the Christian Righteousness
Education Center may currently operate up to three classes with a maximum 10 students per class for a
total of 30 students. Classes may operate for two-hour periods, staggering classes with one-half hour
intervals so that no two classes end or begin at the same time. The number of students permitted during
the Saturday Tutoring Program is limited to two classes of ten students for a maximum of twenty
students. Students range from five to twelve years in age.
Day Care Facility: The day care facility will operate with 3 teachers, one of whom will act as a part-
time administrator. No additional administrative staff are proposed. The applicant is proposing a
maximum of thirty students Monday through Friday. Day Care students will range from three to five
years in age.
HOURS OF OPERATION
Dental Office: The existing Dental Office operates from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on Monday and Tuesday,
8:30 am to 5:30 pm on Wednesday, and 10:00 am to 7:00 pm on Thursday. The Dental Office is
currently closed on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
Christian Righteousness Education Center: The existing Christian Righteousness Education Center is
currently permitted to operate from 9:00 am to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
Day Care Facility: Proposed hours of operation for the day care facility are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., Monday through Friday. There is some overlap in hours with the existing Dental Office as shown
in the table below. The applicant has stated that CREC would only utilize the building on Saturdays as
shown in the proposed hours of operation below.
54
CUP 08-0007; 19888 Prospect Road 5
Proposed Hours of Operation
Day Care Facility CREC1 Dentist Office
Monday 7:00 am to 7:00 pm closed 9:00 am to 6:00 pm
Tuesday 7:00 am to 7:00 pm closed 9:00 am to 6:00 pm
Wednesday 7:00 am to 7:00 pm closed 8:30 am to 5:30 pm
Thursday 7:00 am to 7:00 pm closed 10:00 am to 7:00 pm
Friday 7:00 am to 7:00 pm closed closed
Saturday closed 8:00 am to 8:00 pm2 closed
Sunday closed closed closed
TRAFFIC STUDY
Three (3) iterations of the Site Access, Circulation and Parking Study by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants (“Traffic Study”) were completed for the applicant and are included as attachments to this
Staff Report (Attachment 3). Four (4) iterations of the Peer Review of the Traffic Study have been
completed by Fehr & Peer’s, the City’s traffic consultant (Attachment 4).
Both reports indicate that there is currently a deficient number of parking spaces available to
accommodate the parking demand created by the project. The Reports differ in the number of existing
spaces available, as discussed below. The Peer Review indicates that circulation issues need to be
further addressed.
CIRCULATION AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
The project site is surrounded by Atrium Drive, a private road. No access agreement currently exists
for the site. Therefore, Fehr & Peers recommends that circulation should be restricted to front of the
property to avoid conflicts with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. Furthermore, the
front of the lot should be reconfigured to provide safe vehicle maneuverability, according to Fehr &
Peers.
EXISTING PARKING
Given the lack of an access easement along Atrium Drive, and per Fehr & Peers recommendation, staff
is not considering 4 potential parking spaces available on the south-western portion of the lot (as
shown in the Hexagon Report). Furthermore, Fehr & Peers recommends that the front parking lot be
restriped for angled parking to allow vehicles to safely maneuver in and out of the parking spaces. This
will remove two parking spaces in the front of the property, leaving 8 spaces to accommodate existing
and proposed uses. The Hexagon Report counts the two additional spaces.
REQUIRED PARKING
1 CUP 02-021 currently allows the CREC use to operate from 9:00am to 6:00 pm Monday - Saturday
2 ibid
55
CUP 08-0007; 19888 Prospect Road 6
City Code section 15-35.020(d) provides that the off-street parking requirements of this Article may
be satisfied by common parking facility; provided, that the total number of spaces shall be not less
than the sum of the individual requirements, and provided further, that a contract between the parties
setting forth the agreement for joint use of a common parking facility is recorded in the office of the
County Recorder and a certified copy there is filed with the City.
Dental Office: The Dental Office requires 5 parking spaces per City Code 15-35.030. The dental
office requires 5 marked parking spaces per City Code 15-50.030 and CUP 02-021. However, the
parking lot is currently not marked.
Christian Righteousness Education Center: The Christian Righteousness Education Center requires
three (3) parking spaces for employees plus such additional spaces as determined by the Planning
Commission to be adequate for student and visitor parking. In lieu of the required parking spaces,
Resolution No. 02-021 (CUP application #02-019) allowed the Christian Righteousness Education
Center to utilize off-site pick-up and drop-off at the Home of Christ Christian Center in San Jose.
Day Care Facility: The Day Care Facility requires a minimum of three (3) spaces per City Code
section 15-05.020(j). The Traffic Study indicates that 30 students will create a demand of eight (8)
additional parking spaces.
Required Parking
City Code Section 15-35 Total Required
Dentist Office
Mon – Thu
(1000 SF)
One (1) space for each 200 SF of floor
area
5 spaces
subtotal = 5 spaces
Christian
Righteousness
Education
Center
(3 employees,
20 students
proposed)
One (1) space for each employee,
including teachers and administrators
plus such additional spaces as
determined by the Planning Commission
to be adequate for student and visitor
parking.
In lieu of the required parking
spaces, Resolution No. 02-021
(CUP application #02-019) allowed
the Christian Righteousness
Education Center to utilize off-site
pick-up and drop-off at the Home
of Christ Christian Center in San
Jose.
Day Care
Facility
Mon - Fri
(3 employees,
30 students)
One (1) space for each employee,
including teachers and administrators
plus such additional spaces as
determined by the Planning Commission
to be adequate for student and visitor
parking.
3 spaces (employees)
subtotal = 8 spaces
8 spaces (students) per Traffic
Study
subtotal = 16 spaces
creating a deficit
of 8 spaces
56
CUP 08-0007; 19888 Prospect Road 7
CORRESPONDENCE AND NEIGHBOR REVIEW
The applicant has submitted neighborhood notification forms (Attachment 2). Staff has not received
any negative comments from the public as of the writing of this report.
GENERAL PLAN
Approval of the proposed project would not be consistent with the following General Plan Land Use
Policy and Circulation Goal as discussed below:
Land Use Policy 5.2: Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and
guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of the proposed
use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be fully mitigated. The configuration of the
existing parking lot in the front of the building does not allow safe vehicle maneuverability. There is no
existing sidewalk in front of the property to protect pedestrians from vehicles entering and leaving the
site. The proposed use is too intensive for the proposed location, given current circulation and parking
configuration.
Circulation Goal 7.0a: Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize
intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Per the Fehr & Peers Review, dated October 14th, 2008, the
proposed shuttle service is likely not a viable option. Given the site’s parking deficiency and no viable
option for pick-up and drop-off of students, parking by parents would potentially spillover into the
adjacent neighborhood and properties.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The proposed Day Care Facility is not permitted as a matter of right. The CUP process empowers the
Planning Commission to deny or to grant CUP applications and to impose reasonable conditions to
ensure that a project is compatible with surrounding properties. The granting of a CUP shall be based
on Findings, as stated in City Code Sections 15-55.020 and 15-55.070. Staff can not recommend that
the Planning Commission make any of the CUP findings as discussed below:
Finding #1: 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. Per the Fehr & Peers Review, dated October 14th, 2008,
the proposed shuttle service is likely not a viable option. Given the site’s parking deficiency and no
viable option for pick-up and drop-off of students, parking and traffic by parents would potentially
spillover into the adjacent neighborhood and properties.
Finding #2: 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 commercial-visitor district. The
proposed use is too intensive for the proposed location, given current circulation and parking
57
CUP 08-0007; 19888 Prospect Road 8
configuration. The proposal will create traffic congestion and the number of parking spaces is not in
proportion to the need for the Day Care Facility.
Finding #3: 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. Parking is not adequate to support the use and the configuration of the existing parking lot in
the front of the building does not allow safe vehicle maneuverability. There is no existing sidewalk in
front of the property to protect pedestrians from vehicles entering and leaving the site. Finding #1 also
demonstrates why this finding cannot be made.
Finding #4: 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 both the Hexagon Traffic Study
dated October 7th, 2008 and the Fehr & Peers Review dated October 14th, 2008, the site does not
currently have adequate parking available to serve the project.
CONCLUSION
Staff cannot recommend that the Planning Commission make the findings required for granting the
Conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, the proposal is not consistent with the General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit Application number
CUP 08-0007 and adopt the attached Resolution of Denial.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Resolution of Denial
2) Neighbor Notification Forms; Public Notice, Affidavit, and Labels; Newspaper Notice
3) Site Access, Circulation and Parking Study by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
a) October 7, 2008 Memorandum
b) September 19, 2008 Memorandum (superseded)
c) July 15, 2008 Memorandum (superseded)
4) Peer Review of Site Access, Circulation and Parking Study
a) October 14, 2008 Memorandum
b) September 4, 2008 Memorandum
c) August 26, 2008 Memorandum (superseded)
d) August 7, 2008 Memorandum (superseded)
5) Applicant’s Plans, Exhibit "A"
58
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday October 22, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Theater
located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will be held Tuesday October 21, 2008 between 3:30
and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City
Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. and visit the site listed above as well as other sites as part of the standard
Site Visit Committee agenda. The agenda will be available at City Hall or on the City website:
www.saratoga.ca.us. In order to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written
communications should be filed no later than Monday October 13, 2008.
For more information, including details of the above item, please contact Cynthia McCormick: (408)
868-1230; cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us. Planners are available at the public counter 7:30 a.m. - 12:00
noon. City Hall is open 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and every other Friday. A
calendar with Friday office closures is available at City Hall and on the City website: www.saratoga.ca.us.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place.
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.
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
ADDRESS / APN: 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road / 386-01-027
APPLICANT/OWNER: Theresa Lai / Jeff Kwok
APPLICATION: CUP 08-0011
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Day
Care Facility in an existing building in the commercial-visitor (C-V) zoning district. The site is
located at the corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. The Day Care Facility will
occupy an existing vacant 5,527 square-foot building. The proposed Day Care Facility would serve
up to 60 students with 7 employees and operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
There are 38 shared parking spaces to serve the proposed use.
59
RESOLUTION NO. _____
Application No. CUP 08-0011
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Approval of Conditional Use Permit
Montessori School; 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION NO. CUP 08-0011 FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF
A MONTESSORI SCHOOL AT 12000 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for
conditional use permit approval and variation of parking standards to operate a Montessori
School in an existing building in the Commercial Visitor district; 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 proposed project consists of a Montessori School in an existing building.
The project is Class 3 Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19,
Section 15301. Class 3 exemptions include the conversion of an existing small structure from
one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for
granting said conditional use permit approval and variation of parking standards, as specified in City
Code Section 15-55:
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. Exterior modifications have been designed to fit in with the surrounding
properties. As conditioned, there are enough parking spaces available to accommodate the
proposed use and any future use of the vacant tenant space in the adjacent building.
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. The proposed use is
appropriately located, has adequate parking, and provides needed and convenient services to
residents of the City.
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. The use will be located in
an existing building. The project will be required to meet all Municipal, State, California
Building Code, Fire District, and applicable health and safety regulations. The Montessori
School will be limited to a maximum of sixty students, Monday through Friday. Per the Site
Access, Circulation and Parking Study completed for the Montessori School, adequate circulation and
parking exists to accommodate the proposed use. Any intensification of the proposed use shall
require an amended Conditional Use Permit.
60
RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION NO. CUP 08-0011 FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF
A MONTESSORI SCHOOL AT 12000 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD Page 2 of 4
The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Saratoga Municipal Code. As conditioned, the use will comply with all applicable provisions of
the Saratoga Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the exemption from CEQA is approved, the
required findings as made, and application number CUP 08-0011 for Conditional Use Permit
Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
CONDITONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The use shall be operated as proposed in Exhibit “A” dated 10/13/08; on file with the
Community Development Department and hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The use shall be limited to sixty students, Monday through Friday.
3. The use will be required to meet the requirements of the Reciprocal Easement Agreement,
dated October 24th 1988, and recorded in the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder on
October 27th, 1988.
4. Any intensification of the proposed use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit.
5. 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, safety, welfare, sanitation, and water quality issues.
6. The Community Development Department shall review the Conditional Use Permit upon
receipt of any complaints. Any non-compliance issues identified by the Community
Development Department shall be reported to the Planning Commission.
7. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over this use permit and may
at any time revoke the permit or modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit
to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
61
RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION NO. CUP 08-0011 FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF
A MONTESSORI SCHOOL AT 12000 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD Page 3 of 4
8. A Sign Permit Application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and subject to
approval prior to installing any signage.
9. No HVAC mechanical equipment shall be allowed between the lot line and any required
front, side or rear setback line.
10. Four sets of complete construction plans, incorporating this Resolution, shall be included on
the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. The plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency
with the approved use.
11. Any internal tenant improvements or exterior modifications shall be subject to approval by
the Planning Director or his/her designee prior to issuance of Building Permits.
12. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans
highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval
of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning
Commission.
13. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development
department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the
event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the
balance is restored to a minimum of $500.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
14. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions.
CITY ATTORNEY
15. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees,
agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively “City”) from any and all costs
and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees incurred by the City or held to be
the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding brought in any State
or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project or
contesting any action or inaction in the City’s processing and/or approval of the subject
application.
Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months
from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental
entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City
Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
62
RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION NO. CUP 08-0011 FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF
A MONTESSORI SCHOOL AT 12000 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD Page 4 of 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, this 22nd day of
October 2008 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Manny Cappello
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
__________________________________
John F. Livingstone, AICP
Secretary, Planning Commission
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, the Property Manager, and
the Property Owner or Authorized Agent. Each of 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.
___________________________________ _________________________
Owner or Authorized Agent Date
63
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Application No./Location: CUP 08-0011 / 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Applicant/Owner: Theresa Lai / Jeff Kwok
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner
Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit for a Montessori School
with Variation of Standards for four (4) parking spaces
Date: October 22, 2008
APN: 386-01-027
Department Head:
John F. Livingstone, AICP
64
CUP 08-0011; 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 08/06/08
Application complete: 09/29/08
Notice published: 10/07/08
Mailing completed: 10/04/08
Posting completed: 09/30/08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Montessori School in an existing
building in the commercial-visitor (C-V) zoning district. The site is located at the corner of Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. The Montessori School will occupy an existing vacant 5,527
square-foot building. The proposed Montessori School would serve up to 60 students with 7
employees and operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. There are 38 shared
parking spaces on the subject parcel to serve the proposed use.
STAFF R ECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit Application number
CUP 08-0011 including a variation of parking standards for four (4) parking spaces with required
findings and conditions and find this application exempt from CEQA by adopting the attached
Resolution.
65
CUP 08-0011; 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 3
PROJECT DATA
Zoning: Commercial Visitor (CV)
General Plan Designation: Retail Commercial (CR)
Measure G: Not applicable
Parcel Size: 39,733 square feet
Square Footage of Tenant Space: 5,527 Square-Feet
Environmental Determination: The proposed project consists of a Montessori School in an existing
building. The project is Class 3 Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section
15301. Class 3 exemptions include the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to
another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
Former Use: The project is proposed to be located in a vacant building formerly occupied by a
financial institution. Financial institutions are a permitted use in a C-V district.
Surrounding Land Uses: Land uses surrounding the site are commercial uses to the north and west
and residential uses to the south and east.
Building Site: The existing 5,527 square-foot building is located on “Parcel 1” of three parcels1 in the
Park Saratoga Shopping Center. Various retail businesses (e.g., Peet’s Coffee) are located on “Parcel
2” and Washington Mutual is located on “Parcel 3.”
Employees: The Montessori School will operate with 7 employees.
Students: The Montessori School will serve a maximum of 60 students.
Hours of Operation: Proposed hours of operation for the Montessori School are from 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Traffic Study: Three (3) iterations of the Site Access, Circulation and Parking Study by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants (“Traffic Study”) were completed for the applicant and are included as
attachments to this Staff Report (Attachment 4). A Peer Review of the final Traffic Study was
completed by Fehr & Peers, the City’s traffic consultant, on September 18th, 2008 (Attachment 5). The
final Traffic Study found, and the Peer Review concurred, that the available parking supply and
1 The legal descriptions of the three parcels are described in the Preliminary Title Report for this
property, dated March 28, 2008 from Chicago Title Company in San Jose, CA.
66
CUP 08-0011; 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 4
circulation would be adequate for the proposed project, which creates a parking demand of 21
spaces including 7 spaces for employees and 14 spaces for students. Furthermore, the project will
require less parking than that of its former financial use (28 spaces).
Parking and Circulation
Per City Code section 15-35.020(j), schools and day care facilities require one space for each
employee, including teachers and administrators, plus such additional spaces as determined by the
Planning Commission to be adequate for student and visitor parking.
Per City Code section 15-35.020(d) the 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, and provided further, that a contract between the parties setting forth the agreement for
joint use of a common parking facility is recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified
copy there is filed with the City.
A Reciprocal Easement Agreement, dated October 24th 1988, was recorded in the office of the Santa
Clara County Recorder on October 27th, 1988. The Reciprocal Easement Agreement, as well as the
Preliminary Title Report for this property, outlines a non-exclusive easement between parcels 1, 2, and
3 for parking, ingress, egress. Atrium Drive, a private road, is included in the easement. As a condition
of approval, the project will be required to meet the requirements of the Reciprocal Easement
Agreement, including but not limited to parking, circulation, fencing, and landscaping (COA #2).
There are a total of 195 parking spaces shared between the proposed use and the surrounding uses on
parcels 2 & 3. All parking spaces, including the 38 spaces within the Parcel 1 property line are to be
shared with the two other parcels described above. The total parking required for each of the uses in
the shopping center is shown in the following Parking Table. Currently, there is adequate parking to
accommodate the proposed use because there is one vacant tenant space in the Shopping Center.
Retail services, professional and administrative offices, financial institutions, and personal service
businesses are permitted uses in the C-V district. Each of these uses requires one (1) space for each
200 SF of floor area. If the 2,400 square-foot vacant space is leased to a permitted use, and there are
no changes to the existing parking or the existing tenant uses, there will be a deficiency of four (4)
parking spaces.
Variation of Parking Standards
Per City Code Section 15-55.030, a conditional use may be permitted by a use permit to have different
off-street parking requirements. The Shopping Center has a total of 195 parking spaces. 199 parking
spaces are required to serve the proposed use, the existing uses, and any permitted use of the vacant
tenant space. This represents a deficiency of 4 parking spaces or approximately 1.6% of the total
spaces required. A variation of standards is appropriate given the low percentage of deficient parking
spaces. Staff has visited the site on several occasions and found a sufficient number of vacant spaces to
prevent any spillover of parking into the surrounding neighborhood or properties.
Parking
67
CUP 08-0011; 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 5
Tenant Code Reference Total Required
Crepe Daniele
(1,928 SF)
One (1) space for each 75 SF of floor
area.
In addition, if the restaurant has
outdoor dining, one space for each
seventy-five square feet of outdoor
dining area shall also be provided.
25.71
Quiznos
(1,960 SF)
26.13
Peets
(2,400 SF)
32.00
Chef Wongs
(1,400 SF)
18.67
Dental
(1,440 SF)
One (1) space for each 200 SF of
floor area.
7.20 spaces
Title Co.
(2,640 SF)
13.20 spaces
Home Loans
(3,440 SF)
17.20 spaces
Washington Mutual
(4,600 SF)
23.00 spaces
subtotal = 164 spaces (163.11)
Montessori One (1) space for each employee,
including teachers and administrators,
plus such additional spaces as
determined by the Planning
Commission to be adequate for student
and visitor parking.
7.00 spaces (employees)
subtotal = 171 spaces (170.11)
14.00 spaces (per Traffic Study)
subtotal = 185 spaces (184.11)
Vacant
(2,800 SF)
one (1) space for each 200 SF of
floor area.
14.00 spaces
TOTAL = 199 spaces (198.11)
creating a deficit of 4 spaces
CORRESPONDENCE AND NEIGHBOR REVIEW
The applicant has submitted neighborhood notification forms (Attachment 2). Staff has not received
any negative comments about the proposed use as of the writing of this report. However, staff received
a letter from Donald and Sandy Sifferman regarding an existing Day Care Facility which is
operated by the applicant and located in a residence at 20512 Manor Drive. However, the Day
Care Facility cited in that letter has not been agendized for review on October 22, 2008.
GENERAL PLAN
Approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan Land Use
Policy and Circulation Goal as discussed below:
68
CUP 08-0011; 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 6
Land Use Policy 5.2: Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and
guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of the proposed
use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be fully mitigated. The use will be located in an
existing building where minor exterior modifications are being proposed. The project will be required
to meet all Municipal, Fire District, California Building Code, and applicable health and safety
regulations. The number of students will be limited to a maximum of sixty students Monday through
Friday. Per the Fehr & Peers Review dated September 18th, 2008, adequate circulation and parking
exists to accommodate the proposed use. Any intensification of the proposed use shall require an
amended Conditional Use Permit.
Circulation Goal 7.0a: Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize
intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Exterior modifications have been designed to fit in with the
surrounding properties. The Fehr & Peers Review concurs with the Site Access, Circulation and
Parking Study which states that the proposed project will generate a parking demand of 21 spaces
including 7 spaces for employees and 14 spaces for students. The Shopping Center has a total of
195 parking spaces. 199 parking spaces are required to serve the proposed use, the existing uses, and
any potential permitted use of the vacant tenant space, as shown in the Parking Table in this Staff
Report. A Variation of Standards for four (4) parking spaces or approximately 1.6% of the total
spaces is appropriate given the low percentage of deficient parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The proposed Montessori School is not permitted as a matter of right and therefore requires a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP process empowers the Planning Commission to deny or to
grant CUP applications and to impose reasonable conditions to ensure that a project is compatible with
surrounding properties. The granting of a CUP shall be based on Findings, as stated in City Code
Sections 15-55.020 and 15-55.070. Staff can recommend that the Planning Commission can make all
of the CUP findings as discussed below:
Finding #1: 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. Exterior modifications have been designed to fit in with the surrounding properties. As
conditioned, there are enough parking spaces available to accommodate the proposed use and any
future use of the vacant tenant space in the adjacent building.
Finding #2: 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. The proposed use is
appropriately located, has adequate parking, and provides needed and convenient services to residents
of the City.
Finding #3: 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. The use will be located in an
69
CUP 08-0011; 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 7
existing building. The project will be required to meet all Municipal, State, California Building Code,
Fire District, and applicable health and safety regulations. The Montessori School will be limited to a
maximum of sixty students, Monday through Friday. Per the Site Access, Circulation and Parking
Study completed for the Montessori School, adequate circulation and parking exists to accommodate
the proposed use. Any intensification of the proposed use shall require an amended Conditional Use
Permit.
Finding #4: The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Saratoga Municipal Code. As conditioned, the use will comply with all applicable provisions of the
Saratoga Municipal Code.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that all of the Conditional Use Permit findings
can be made in the affirmative. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit Application number
CUP 08-0011 including a variation of parking standards for four (4) parking spaces with required
findings and conditions and find this application exempt from CEQA by adopting the attached
Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Resolution of Approval
2) Neighbor Notification Forms; Public Notice, Affidavit, and Labels; Newspaper Notice
3) Letter from Donald and Sandy Sifferman
4) Site Access, Circulation and Parking Study by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
a) September 10, 2008 Memorandum
b) August 28, 2008 Memorandum (superseded)
c) August 1, 2008 Memorandum (superseded)
5) Peer Review by Fehr & Peers Traffic Consultants, dated September 18th, 2008
6) Applicant’s Plans, Exhibit "A"
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82