Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2008 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 12, 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 22, 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 November 6, 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). CONSENT CALENDAR: 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 CUP08-0013 (503-49-051) Gaitonde - 20865 Saratoga Hills Road - The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a generator to provide an emergency backup power supply for an existing single-family residence. The generator is to be located adjacent to the east side of the residence. The generator will be surrounded by an insulated redwood fence enclosure, which would screen the generator from view as well as provide noise reduction. The lot is 13,419 gross square feet in size and is zoned R-1-12,500. Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-80.030(k). (Rina Shah) 2. APPLICATION ADR08-0011 (389-17-046) - Dalal, 18774 Dundee Avenue - The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Design (ADR) approval to construct a new single-story detached recreation room within the required rear setback. The structure is approximately 693 sq. ft. Per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-80.030 (d) (1), a CUP is required for a cabana, recreation 1 room, or similar structure to be located within a required rear setback. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure will be not exceed 10 ft. The net lot size on 18774 Dundee Avenue is 10,000 sq. ft. and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (Michael Fossati) 3. APPLICATION PDR 08-0019 (397-19-005) Brozicevic/Kochhar - 15360 Best View Ct. - The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story, single-family dwelling with a total floor area of approximately 6,361 square-feet. The height of the proposed home is less than 26 feet. The applicant proposes to remove 17 trees protected by City Code. The lot is currently vacant and is approximately 58,340 square feet in area. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Cynthia McCormick) 4. APPLICATION# PDR08-0033(503-78-004)- 21888 Villa Oaks Lane - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a 5,825 square foot two-story single-family residence with a basement and an attached three car garage. The residence would be approximately 24.5 feet tall. The net lot size is approximately 1-acre and the site is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). (Chris Riordan) 5. APPLICATION# ZOA07-0001 -(City Wide) Zoning Ordinance Amendment & Negative Declaration- Regulations Related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges & Negative Declaration (Chris Riordan) DIRECTORS ITEM: COMMISSION ITEMS: COMMUNICATIONS: ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING: - Wednesday, December 10, 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 November 6, 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 22, 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, Assistant Planner  Cynthia McCormick and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 8, 2008.  Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kumar,  the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 8,  2008, were adopted with edits to pages 12 and 13.  (7­0)  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 16, 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 15­90.050(b).  CONSENT CALENDAR  There were no Consent Calendar items. 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 2  ***  PUBLIC HEARING ­ ITEM NO. 1  APPLICATION #PDR08­0025 (503­24­046) – 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 five­story 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 square feet in size and is zoned CH­1.  (Chris Riordan)  Mr. Chris Riordan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval and Modification to the  existing Conditional Use Permit approval with a Variation of Standards. • Described the project as including a 2,052 square foot horizontal addition to the existing  The Inn at Saratoga. • Said that a hotel is a conditional use in the CH­1 zoning district and that this addition  requires a Modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit. • Stated that this is an existing five­story building that slopes down from Big Basin Way  towards Saratoga Creek.  It appears to be a two­story as seen from Big Basin Way. • Said that a 1,066 square foot addition will be added to the fourth floor (the ground floor as  viewed from Big Basin Way).  A 986 square foot addition is proposed for the fifth floor that  is consisting of two additional guest rooms and a small office (appears to be the second  story when seen from Big Basin Way). • Explained that the exterior materials would match the existing materials of The Inn. • Stated that the hotel was originally constructed approximately 21 years ago as a five­story  building, with two stories facing Big Basin Way and five stories facing Saratoga Creek. • Reported that the Zoning Code has since changed thereby limiting buildings facing the  Creek to three stories. • Added that the maximum height in the CH­1 district is 35 feet.  As constructed the height of  this hotel is approximately 41 feet as measured from average grade.  The height of the  addition, as measured from average grade would be 37 feet. The addition is three feet  shorter than the existing elevation on Big Basin Way and will not exceed the existing two­  story height standard. • Stated that staff is recommending approval of a Variation of Standard to allow this height  to be granted. • Said that a mansard roof for the addition would encroach by 2 feet, 9 inches, into the  airspace above the City parking lot for an approximate length of 62 feet. A condition of  approval is required to obtain an encroachment permit through the Public Works  Department subject to Council approval. • Advised that the area where the addition would go is currently landscaped.  The applicant  would be relocating the landscape material to fill in other under­landscaped areas on site. • Recommended that the Planning Commission grant Design Review approval and  Modification to the Conditional Use Permit with a Variation of Standards. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 3 • Made two changes to the draft resolution.  On page 4 the word “none” should be stricken.  On page 5, under Condition 11, “The City The City” appears twice and one reference  should be stricken.  Commissioner Zhao asked how the elevation is shorter than existing.  Planner Chris Riordan said that the addition is three feet shorter.  This addition juts out from  the hotel.  Commissioner Hlava asked about the neighbors from across the creek and their complaints  about noise from the operation of systems at The Inn.  Will any of that change with this  addition? Will there be more noise?  Will the systems be relocated?  Planner Chris Riordan advised that the applicant says that there is no greater use of HVAC  systems with this addition than is currently used so no change is planned.  Commissioner Rodgers asked if the requirement to file for an encroachment permit with the  Public Works Department should be recorded as a permanent condition.  Does it go with the  property?  Director John Livingstone said that recordation of that condition is not required.  They have to  do it.  It goes to Council.  It would be unreasonable to record it.  Planner Chris Riordan added that this project could not be built without that encroachment  permit being issued.  Commissioner Rodgers asked what might happen 50 to 100 years down the road when it’s  time to redo this inn.  What would prevent any dispute about this encroached space?  Director John Livingstone assured that Council would properly evaluate and document its  action.  Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.  Mr. Lee, Applicant and Owner, The Inn at Saratoga: • Said that the hotel has had this same compressor for 20 years and he has never had  complaints about the noise of its operation. • Added that this addition is not resulting in an increase in noise as the amount of use of the  HVAC system would not increase. • Stated that there would be no night meetings held in the new meeting room and they are  only adding two guest rooms.  Mr. Craig Aubrey, Owner, Sam Cloud Barn: • Said that he had some concerns about this application. • Pointed out that 2,000 square feet of landscaping is being removed including some mature  trees and shrubs. • Added that this site is located next to their building, which is a registered historic building. 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 4 • Expressed some concern that landscaping be put back in and said he would like to be  involved in the decisions on said re­landscaping. • Said that the entrance from Saratoga is approximately nine feet from their building and  there is currently no ADA access. • Added that they were required to put in ADA access and bathrooms with their own  remodel. • Advised that their main concern is parking and that this addition would create more  burdens for parking at the Third Street lot given the fact that the applicant has removed  three parking spaces around The Inn. • Stated concern that people coming to his building will not have anywhere to park during  the day. • Asked that a condition be imposed that the parking situation would be worked out.  Ms. Katherine Brockett, Resident on Brookwood Lane: • Explained that the back of her house backs Mr. Lee’s Inn. • Stated that the idea of expanding The Inn is great.  If it is successful that would bring more  traffic into the Village and that too is great. • Said that before this addition is approved, she wants to talk about the sound of the  compressor. • Reported that it runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. • Assured that adding another 2,000 square feet will make it run more. • Advised that the noise from this is a huge issue for her and for her neighbors. • Asked that the City work with Mr. Lee to baffle the system to make the noise less bad.  While the daytime is not as bad, the evenings can be pretty annoying.  Ms. Nancy Kessler, Resident on Brookwood Glen: • Questioned where participants attending meetings in this new room will go for breaks. • Explained that noise from the patio area causes noise impacts. • Advised that she too can hear the noise from the compressor.  Mr. Lee, Applicant and Owner, The Inn at Saratoga: • Reported that he is the one who planted the landscaping that he now has to take out to  construct his addition there. • Advised that there is no place for more trees. • Informed that he too complained about parking when Craig Aubrey came before this  Commission. • Added that the use of the meeting space would be occasional and not continuous.  They  will occur only in the daytime. • Reminded that he has 40 dedicated parking spaces that is sufficient to serve meetings in  his space and for nighttime parking for guests.  In the daytime, this parking is empty. • Pointed out that they typically only have between 40 and 50 percent occupancy. • Assured that there would be no increase in the current noise levels with this addition.  Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Lee if he could enclose his compressor. 6 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 5  Mr. Lee said that space is needed for air.  He added that trees he planted have grown to block  sound.  He bought this hotel 16 years ago and planted screening trees at that time.  Those  mature trees now effectively block the sound.  Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Lee if he has a landscape plan.  Mr. Lee said that there is no land available for more landscaping.  He added that he is only  removing landscaping from the area where the addition would be constructed.  He assured  that he would do anything possible to improve the appearance of the hotel site.  Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Lee if there is ADA access to the hotel.  Mr. Lee said yes, from the front entrance.  Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is ADA access from the Third Street parking area.  She  asked staff if this project reduces the moratorium for parking.  Planner Chris Riordan replied correct.  Commissioner Rodgers asked if this applicant is exempt from having to provide any additional  parking as part of the parking moratorium, which was a five­year plan.  She expressed doubt  that Mr. Lee had as many dedicated parking spaces as he claims.  W here are they and how  many are there?  Mr. Lee said he has 40 dedicated spaces in his parking lot.  Chair Cappello advised that Mr. Lee re­striped his lot for 40 spaces.  Commissioner Rodgers said that there appears to be a difference of opinion between Mr. Lee  and staff and that the City claims that some of the parking spaces are located within the  parking district lot.  However, he is exempt from needing to provide additional parking with this  application so it is not an issue at this point.  Mr. Lee said that users of the meeting space would have to come to the main entrance rather  than the Third Street lot, which is usually full any way.  Commissioner Rodgers asked if he has Inn only parking marked on the Third Street lot.  Mr. Lee said no.  Those spaces are only for common uses.  Commissioner Rodgers asked if the bathrooms located near the conference space are ADA  compatible.  Mr. Lee replied yes.  Commissioner Kumar asked how many people the conference room could accommodate. 7 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 6  Mr. Lee said 40.  Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Lee if he feels there would be parking issues.  Is there  enough parking?  Mr. Lee said there is no problem in his own lot.  It is usually less than 50 percent occupied. It  sometimes fills up with special meetings.  However, hotel guests use the parking at night while  meeting attendees would use this parking in the daytime.  He added that some attendees  come together in cars and reminded that there are 40 spaces available.  Commissioner Kumar asked if there would be a separate HVAC zone for the new space.  Mr. Lee said that they would be extending the existing line.  Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Lee if there would not be an increase in the use of HVAC.  Mr. Lee replied only if completely booked while they are usually only about 50 percent  booked.  Commissioner Hlava said that a lot of work was done fitting in landscaping when the Barn was  reviewed for renovation.  She said that the view would change significantly as seen from the  Barn with the removal of landscaping from The Inn.  Mr. Lee reminded that the building wall would be right next to the parking lot.  There is no  space to put in landscaping except perhaps for some low growing shrubs.  He added that if  there were any land remaining available for landscaping he would put some in there.  Chair Cappello said that the Commission is asking for a landscape plan.  Director John Livingstone said that Condition 9 involves taking and relocating landscaping  material that is being removed to an area that is currently less densely landscaped.  Commissioner Hlava expressed concern over the possibility that someone using a wheelchair  cannot go to the Village restaurants using the Third Street entrance without having to go  around.  She questioned the possibility of installing a ramp.  Mr. Lee said that if a ramp were required by law, he would provide it.  However, they have  been operating okay for 16 years now without one.  He added that he has one handicapped­  accessible room that is located downstairs.  Commissioner Hlava advised that her husband was in a wheelchair for several years so she is  sensitive about accessibility.  Commissioner Rodgers: • Reported that she has gone to meetings with friends using wheelchairs. • Recounted that there had been times when they have had to carry people upstairs and  downstairs. 8 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 7 • Stated that this is just not acceptable for a meeting room for the public. • Added that if there is an emergency, she wants people to be able to get out using the  nearest exit, which is that exit on Third Street. • Said that she does not understand why Mr. Lee is not interested in putting in a ramp there.  It is easily doable. • Asked Mr. Lee if he is willing to do so on a voluntary basis.  Mr. Lee said he would look into it.  Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Lee what is the floor area of the two additional guest rooms.  Mr. Lee replied approximately 800 square feet.  Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.  Commissioner Nagpal asked if there were any documented noise complaints.  Planner Chris Riordan replied no, just the person who spoke this evening.  Commissioner Hlava asked since there is already an ADA compliant entrance downstairs  could one also be required for the Third Street entrance.  Director John Livingstone advised that there must be a nexus to require that.  He added that  putting a ramp in there would result in the loss of the landscaping to the left side.  He deferred  to the City Attorney regarding the nexus for this requirement in this instance.  Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that a hydraulic lift does not take up much space.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said he had used such lifts in hotels before.  He said that the  question is whether there is a nexus to require this.  Is it legally required?  Director John Livingstone advised that the Building Official reviewed this project.  As the main  entrance has ADA access located at the parking lot, he says it does not create the  requirement for ADA access at the side entrance.  Commissioner Rodgers asked even if there is an intensification of use by means of a  conference facility.  Director John Livingstone replied yes.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the standard condition requiring compliance with all  Federal, State and local standards could be added.  He added that Mr. Lee has already  testified that if required by law he would do it.  Commissioner Hlava: • Asked if this condition would also cover the noise issue raised.  She said she is kind of  concerned as it sounds like these neighbors have a regular issue with noise. 9 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 8 • Added that the fact that this is the first time we’ve heard about it does not mean that it is  not still a problem for them. • Inquired whether correction would be required if the Code Enforcement staff tested the  noise of the compressor and found it to be in excess of the sound level allowed.  Commissioner Nagpal replied yes, with that condition in place it would.  She reminded that  this application under consideration is a Modification of the Use Permit as well as Design  Review approval.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the question is whether this addition makes the noise  situation louder.  If it is not increased there is no nexus.  The question is, does the existing  Noise Ordinance cover something that has been there for 20 year.  He said he would do some  quick research on this.  Commissioner Nagpal: • Referred to the landscaping issue. • Said that Condition 9 should adequately address that. • Added that staff would make sure that there is something that looks good at the end of the  day. • Stated that as for the ADA access issue for the Third Street lot, it may not legally be  required with just a 1,900 square foot or 10 percent addition. • Reminded that the parking issue is dealt with through the moratorium that is in place as far  as not being required to provide additional parking.  Director John Livingstone advised that the moratorium ends in February 2009.  Commissioner Nagpal reminded that the point of that moratorium was to stimulate new  projects in the Village.  Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that from a Design Review perspective he can make the findings. • Added that Condition 9 addresses the landscaping issue. • Pointed out that this project also takes down a pole lamp that provides some security  lighting in the Third Street parking area. • Suggested adding a review of lighting to Condition 9 to the satisfaction of the Community  Development Director. • Reminded that ADA requirements are dictated by law. • Added that parking has been taken care of. • Said that the City Attorney is currently looking into the noise issue if it cannot be dealt with  in the conditions for the CUP. • Stated that the City has complaint­driven code enforcement available to see if the  compressor meets the City’s noise standards or not.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer made his determination that the condition requiring  compliance with all Federal, State or local laws would cover existing development. 10 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 9  Commissioner Zhao asked if the Commission has to consider any further the issue of noise.  City Attorney Jonathan W ittwer clarified that The Inn at Saratoga must meet Noise Ordinance  standards.  Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she is fine with the Design Review findings. • Said that she is happy to see that this owner is willing to work with staff on the landscaping  and that not all of the existing landscaping is to be removed. • Stressed the need to comply with all laws on the issue of ADA accessibility.  Commissioner Kumar: • Said that ADA access and noise issues have been resolved. • Said that Condition 9 can deal with landscaping and lighting of the Third Street lot. • Added that parking is a moot point with the moratorium on the need to provide additional  parking. • Stated he was okay with this project.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that Section 3 of the resolution already requires  compliance with all Federal, State and local requirements.  Commissioner Nagpal asked if a specific condition should also be added to the resolution.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said not beyond what is already stated in Section 3.  Commissioner Hlava said that she could make the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit  findings.  She supported the addition of a review of both landscaping and lighting by the  Director.  Commissioner Rodgers said she too could make the Design Review findings and would like to  suggest a rewording of Condition 9, “The landscape plan shall be subject to review and  approval of the Community Development Director.”  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that review was necessary but approval not necessarily  so.  Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the location and operation of lighting is not handled. • Stated that she could not make the health, safety and welfare finding as the conference  room without ADA access to the Third Street parking is detrimental to the health, safety  and welfare of the community. • Added that this comes into play in the event there is a fire in this building.  Chair Cappello said he could make the findings to support the project. 11 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 10  Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava,  the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Conditional Use  Permit approvals, with a Variation of Standards, to allow a 2,052 square  foot addition to The Inn at Saratoga on property located at 20645 Fourth  Street, as amended by staff and editing Condition 9 to require a landscape  and lighting plan, by the following roll call vote:  AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao  NOES: Rodgers  ABSENT: None  ABSTAIN: None  ***  PUBLIC HEARING ­ ITEM NO. 2  APPLICATION #CUP08­0007 (386­01­008) – 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 commercial­visitor zoning district.  The site is located on Prospect Road,  approximately 250 feet east of Saratoga­Sunnyvale 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 three employees and operate Monday through Friday from  7 a.m. to 7 p.m.  There are approximately 8­10 parking spaces to serve the proposed use and  the existing 1,000 square foot dental office.  (Cynthia McCormick)  Ms. Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Said that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the  establishment of a Day Care Facility within an existing building currently occupied by a  dentist and the Christian Righteousness Center. • Reported that the applicant’s traffic engineer completed a traffic study.  The City’s traffic  consultant reviewed the report. • Advised that both reports indicate that there are a deficient number of parking spaces  available to accommodate the project. • Said that there are additional concerns regarding traffic circulation, pedestrian safety and  parking lot maneuverability that have been brought up. • Stated that the traffic study indicates that the proposed use would generate a parking  demand of 11 spaces.  This includes eight spaces for student parking drop off and three  spaces for employees.  This is added to the five spaces required for the dental office for a  total site requirement of 16 spaces. • Added that following the required sidewalk installation and restriping of the parking lot,  there are only eight spaces available to serve the proposed use and the existing dental  office.  That is a deficiency of half the spaces needed per the traffic study. • Said that given the inadequate parking, traffic would likely spill over into the surrounding  neighborhood. • Stated that staff cannot recommend that the Planning Commission make the required  findings to support this application.  The proposed use is too intensive for this location. • Recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit. 12 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 11  Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.  Ms. Christina Wu, Applicant: • Requested a continuance via a letter to staff. • Reported that she is still waiting for an easement agreement from their neighbor.  Chair Cappello asked if the neighbors are aware that if they give up parking they could  jeopardize the review of the next project that comes up for review shortly.  Ms. Christina Wu said she believes they do.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned that giving up parking spaces could also impact the  use of the existing shopping center.  Ms. Christina Wu said that there are two issues.  One is the easement access and the second  is number of parking spaces.  She added that there are four spaces on the side of their  property that could be accessed via the easement.  Chair Cappello said that even with those four additional spaces, there still are not enough.  He  said that while Ms. Wu is asking for a continuance, that may not solve the problem or may  create a problem for another site.  Ms. Christina Wu said that she strongly requests a continuance to deal with the two different  issues of easement and spaces.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Reminded that this is a noticed hearing so it is important to ask if there is anyone here this  evening wishing to speak. • Added that the Christian Righteousness Center was approved before and was supposed  to have a parking agreement with the nearby church.  Evidence of that agreement has not  been found. • Said that as a result there may be an even bigger parking deficiency. • Reminded that the potential impacts are on this property and possibly the adjacent  shopping center. • Said that while nothing could be approved this evening, the project could be denied.  Commissioner Kundtz asked if the continuance should be to a date certain or uncertain.  Ms. Christina Wu: • Said that their school would operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.  The official student start time is  8:30 a.m.  Therefore, there are varied arrival times between 7 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. • Added that for evening pick up, most of the parents work and will pick up their children  between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. • Proposed use of a shuttle service as one solution to the parking deficiency.  It would  represent a greener way of delivering kids to the school. 13 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 12 • Pointed out that her consultant’s traffic report said that this space could accommodate 20  students with existing parking while the City’s consultant, Fehr & Peers, disagreed. • Reported that there has been the on­going use of the easement for the last six years  without complaint.  Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.  Chair Cappello: • Said that continuing this item when there may or may not be a viable solution for parking  may si mply be putting off the inevitable. • Said that he would like to hear input from the other Commissioners on how to proceed.  Options include approval, denial or a continuance (date certain or uncertain).  Commissioner Kumar said that different options are being considered and it sounds like this  applicant is very motivated.  He said he is in favor of a continuation so she can evaluate  options and come back with a fresh new proposal.  Commissioner Hlava: • Said that she is almost always in favor of giving an applicant at least the chance to try and  make changes to their proposal. • Added that she is having a hard time with this because she thinks the applicant has  already been given direction by staff for quite a period of time that there are big parking  issues with this site. • Said that saying the Commission is going to deny it outright tonight would mean the  Commission feels there are no possibilities of solutions that the applicant can come up  with. • Stated that she has a hard time saying that at this time but on the other hand she does not  see anything the applicant can come up with. • Said that she does not want to waste the applicant’s time (and money) or staff time with  something that looks so impossible. • Concluded that she is still in a quandary but wants to hear what others have to say.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that one option is denial without prejudice, which means  that the applicant can come back at any time.  Commissioner Hlava asked if the applicant would have to re­file her application and pay new  fees.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes.  Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she can’t see any way that she would approve this tonight but that she always  likes to give an applicant a chance to make modifications. • Suggested that one condition may be to reduce the number of children from 30 to 15 but  she does not know if that would be economically feasible for the Day Care Facility. • Added that it still may not resolve the issue. 14 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 13 • Asked if it is possible to use the area behind the building to add parking spaces. • Advised that she is not willing to approve use of a shuttle service for 2 to 5 year olds.  Instead they require pick up and drop off. • Stated that with another similar use on the property next door, it may be too intense. • Reiterated that she is always willing to give the applicant the chance to get creative.  Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that it feels like an impossible situation when 16 spaces are needed and only eight  are available.  With the easement another four spaces might be picked up. • Said that several things need to kick into play here. • Advised that she is certain that staff has worked hard to get this application in place. • Pointed out that if the Commission were to deny the request, this applicant loses her fees. • Stated that she is in favor of a continuance but to a very specific date.  If it is not done by  then, it needs to come back for a decision.  Commissioner Rodgers asked Commissioner Nagpal what kind of time she is looking at.  Commissioner Nagpal suggested asking staff what is the next available date and see if that is  reasonable for the applicant.  She added that a lot of time has already been spent on this  application that was filed in June.  Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that easement issues might take six months to finalize.  Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that things for this project might change depending on the  decision made by this Commission on the next item.  It might change the equation for these  folks.  She said she would support a continuance to date certain.  Chair Cappello: • Agreed that all three entities on site (dental office, the Christian Righteousness Center and  this school) need to work together. • Said that the landscape plan needs to be addressed. • Said that he does not see a solution to the parking problem even with an easement. • Advised that he does not want to see an arrangement made with the adjacent shopping  center, as they are in a pretty tight situation themselves as far as parking. • Added that the project coming up next will be one where a Variation of Standards for  parking will be required, as they don’t meet the parking requirements on their own project. • Said that he too is typically in favor of a continuance, as he hates to say no to an applicant  if there may be a solution available to them. • Stated that he just does not see what solution may be possible here. • Informed that he is more inclined, in these circumstances, to do a denial and cut the losses  on this rather than string the applicant along just to be denied at a later date.  That costs  them ti me and money as well. • Announced that he is inclined to deny this project without prejudice.  If they come up with a  solution (he does not know what) they can always resubmit at a later date.  Commissioner Zhao: 15 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 14 • Said that she likes to give an applicant the chance to explore different options such as  reducing the number of students. • Agreed that the shuttle bus is not a good solution.  It is not practical or workable. • Supported giving the applicant time to work out solutions. • Favored the continuance.  Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that the applicant has heard the pros and cons for a continuance. • Said he is personally in favor of a continuance to a time specific. If not successful by that  time a denial is likely forthcoming.  Commissioner Hlava: • Said it so happens there are two­day cares on the agenda this evening. • Pointed out that there are long ques each school day on Saratoga Avenue for St. Andrews  and on Cox Avenue for the Challenger School. • Stressed the importance of having an organized way for student drop off and pick up. • Reminded that there is a lack of parking here and the lot is on a very busy street. • Supported a continuance to a date certain.  Commissioner Kumar said that a shuttle is not a good option for infants but better for pre­  schoolers.  He said that timing is up to the applicant as the urgency is theirs.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that staff normally recommends continuances to a date  certain to avoid the need to re­notice an item.  However, in this case re­noticing will be  necessary to bring in the other uses on site into the application.  Chair Cappello agreed that it is a completely different project with the other uses included.  Commissioner Nagpal said she does not want to lead anyone on.  She supported setting a  new date, outlining the expectations and making a decision at that time.  Commissioner Hlava reminded that there are just one meeting each in November and  December.  She suggested a continuance of this item to the first meeting in January.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that there should be a deadline for submitted information  to staff for evaluation in preparation for the next hearing.  He reminded that the City Hall would  be closed for the last two weeks of the year.  Commissioner Nagpal said that material from the applicant would be required by December  15, 2008.  Chair Cappello suggested a continuance to a date uncertain with a set deadline for new  information. 16 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 15  Director John Livingstone said that staff does not believe a date certain is necessary.  If it  takes too long, staff will notify the applicant. At a certain point, the application can be closed  due to inactivity.  Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava,  the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN  consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (Application #CUP08­0007) to  locate a Day Care Facility on property located at 19888 Prospect Road, by  the following roll call vote:  AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao  NOES: Cappello  ABSENT: None  ABSTAIN: None  ***  PUBLIC HEARING ­ ITEM NO. 3  APPLICATION #CUP08­0011 (386­01­027) – Lai/Kwok, 12000 Saratoga­Sunnyvale Road:  The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Day Care Facility in an  existing building in the commercial­visitor (C­V) zoning District.  The site is located at the  corner of Saratoga­Sunnyvale 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 seven employees and operate Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 7  p.m.  There are 38 shared parking spaces to serve this proposed use.  (Cynthia McCormick)  Ms. Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that this is an application for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Montessori  School within an existing building, which is currently vacant. • Added that the school would serve 60 students and have seven employees.  Operational  hours are between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Advised that the site plan has been amended to depict the relocation of the playground  equipment and the use of wood chips beneath the canopies of all oak trees on site. • Described the property as one of three parcels that share parking and circulation.  There is  a reciprocal easement in place that was filed with the County on October 24, 1988.  The  total number of shared parking spaces must meet individual requirements. • Said that there are 195 spaces available and 199 spaces are required to support this and  all other uses on site.  This results in a deficit of four spaces or 1.6 percent of the parking  requirement. • Stated that a Variation of Standards is appropriate in staff’s opinion given the limited  shortage. • Reported that the previous bank required 28 or seven more than this proposed use. • Said that a traffic study was prepared by the applicant’s traffic consultant and reviewed by  the City’s consultant.  Both consultants found parking supply and circulation to be  adequate to support this use.  Of the 21 spaces, seven are for employees and 14 are for  students. 17 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 16 • Recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit that includes a Variation in Standards  for parking to allow four fewer spaces than required.  Staff also recommends that the  project be found to Exempt under CEQA.  Commissioner Rogers asked Planner Cynthia McCormick if she had spoken with Arborist  Kate Bear regarding the trees.  Planner Cynthia McCormick replied yes.  She advised that Arborist Kate Bear has  recommended use of wood chips under the canopy of the oaks.  That requirement is shown  on the site plan.  Commissioner Nagpal said she knows the building was a bank before.  Was it always a bank  or was it ever retail?  Commissioner Hlava said that at one time it was a very fancy interior design shop.  Prior to  that it was Saratoga National Bank and later San Jose National Bank.  Commissioner Nagpal asked if a Use Permit was required for the bank use.  Planner Cynthia McCormick said that a bank is a permitted use by right.  Commissioner Nagpal asked about the questions raised in the email distributed regarding a  different facility at another location operated by these operators.  Planner Cynthia McCormick said that City Code allows home based childcare facilities with up  to six children without requirement for a Conditional Use Permit.  She added that based on the  email there may be more than that there but staff has not yet gone out there.  Commissioner Nagpal stated that this represents a Code Enforcement issue at a separate  location.  Commissioner Rodgers asked if the requirements for wood chips beneath the oaks would be  done under the supervision of Kate Bear.  Planner Cynthia McCormick said that any area with oaks couldn’t have grass but rather only  wood chips beneath their canopies.  At the site visit with Kate Bear today, that requirement  was added in and the applicant is aware of it.  She said that it is possible to require that the  landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist.  Director John Livingstone said that the proposed landscape plan would include removal of the  ivy and planting of grass except under oaks where wood chips would be installed.  Commissioner Kundtz asked how access to the play area would be made from the building.  Director John Livingstone said that it is fairly easy to make access.  All areas can be accessed  reasonably. 18 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 17  Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.  Ms. Janice Yeh, Representative for Applicants: • Identified herself as the daughter of applicants Theresa Lai and Jerry Chen who are in the  audience. • Reported that her parents have run a learning center for school aged children in Cupertino  for four years and a small day care from their home in Saratoga for three years. • Advised that they have a good reputation and have seen a growth in the number of  students.  They are ready for a larger facility with a larger play area for the kids and more  appropriately located in a commercial zone. • Said that the proposed use is a Montessori school that is bi­lingual for children between  the ages of two to five. • Provided a drop off and pick up schedule for three full day programs and two half­day  programs.  The full day programs are called:  Early Bird, Regular Hours and Late Bird. • Said that there are a total of 60 students but not all come or go at the same time. • Said that their new site is at the corner of Prospect and Saratoga­Sunnyvale Road.  There  are four entries to the site:  Saratoga­Sunnyvale Road; Prospect; Kirkmont and Atrium  Drive. • Explained that the site plan now depicts the removal of the ivy and cleanup of the  landscaping.  A play structure will be located to the right of the ramp with wood chips.  To  the right of that is a grassy area. • Assured that they would follow the recommendations of the City Arborist on where to place  the wood chips and where to place the grass. • Advised that it is important to them to have a fenced in area for the play yard with a four­  foot high metal picket fence so the kids don’t venture into the parking lot. • Advised that they are not planning on removing any trees on site. • Said that there would be minimal building modifications except for the addition of three  doors.  One is at the location of the former ATM machine to provide access to the play  area from the building.  Another door is more toward Prospect side of the building that also  gives access to the play area.  The third is a pair of glass doors facing Saratoga­  Sunnyvale Road.  There is currently not a door there.  It will create an entry facing the  main road and pedestrian access from the sidewalk to their building. • Said that changes to the interior include putting in partition walls to create three large  classrooms and several smaller classrooms.  The bathrooms will also be remodeled to  meet ADA requirements as well as installing smaller plumbing fixtures to accommodate  young children. • Stated her belief that this school will provide a service to parents and the community. • Advised that in the last census, 1,600 children were identified in Saratoga younger than  age 5. • Assured that this school could provide important pre­school education.  Commissioner Hlava asked Ms. Janice Yeh if adding double doors with access to the  sidewalk means that some parents would likely walk their children to this school.  Ms. Janice Yeh said that is what they are thinking.  It seems to make sense to them. 19 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 18  Commissioner Rodgers asked if this door would also function as an emergency exit.  Ms. Janice Yeh replied probably not.  She said that there are exits from the classrooms and  they prefer not to exit out onto a busy street.  Commissioner Kundtz said that he presumed there are pretty significant insurance and  licensing requirements.  He asked if they are all in place.  Ms. Janice Yeh said that they couldn’t yet be in place until they have a building permit and the  building is inspected.  She said that they must go through the City’s Use Permit process first  and they will have to get their license from the State for this facility after that.  Commissioner Kundtz clarified that the City process comes first.  Ms. Janice Yeh replied right.  Mr. Pradeep Fernandes, Resident on Pierce Road: • Said that his daughter attends their Cupertino facility and really enjoys it. • Stated that the Montessori format with bi­lingual education works out really well. • Added that having this facility in Saratoga is much more convenient for his family. • Highly recommended approval.  Ms. Sunny Wong, Resident on Holiday Drive: • Said that she has two kids, Matthew, 6, and Crystal, 3, who has attended their program for  1.5 years. • Advised that she is here to show support for this wonderful school. • Reported that she moved to Saratoga five years ago and was surprised by the lack of bi­  lingual schools in Saratoga. • Added that she had to send her kids to schools in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, until she  found The Growing Tree.  Her kids are happy there and learning.  The Montessori program  is great and the school has loving and caring teachers. • Stated that she was given a comprehensive five­page report on her daughter during the  school’s open house held in April.  It outlined her learning progress and was impressive. • Said that she is really excited about this new site.  It will be good for Saratoga students  and their parents. • Urged approval.  Commissioner Kumar said that he agrees with the Montessori program.  His son is in one and  he’s turned out much “smarter than myself.”  Mr. Jay Fiore, Resident on Orbit Drive: • Identified himself as another enthusiastic parent. • Advised that he has two boys at their school for some time.  They love the bi­lingual  program. • Said the school offers a thorough attention to detail. • Added that it represents a service to the community.  We have a real winner here. 20 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 19  Ms. Danielle Olsen, Resident on Green Meadow Lane: • Said that she too is here in support. • Said that she has a six­year old in another program but will be adopting a three­year old  from Nepal in the next six months who will arrive speaking only Nepalese. • Stated her belief that day cares should be located in areas with adequate parking and are  best located in commercial centers such as this one.  Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.  Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that it is great to have the community come out and speak for bi­lingual education. • Said that she is ready to make a motion as she is comfortable with this application and  wishes the applicants all the best.  Commissioner Kundtz said he also supports this request but asks how the final licensing from  the State is provided to the City.  Chair Cappello said that likely it would be during the time the Certificate of Occupancy is  issued.  Commissioner Nagpal reminded of the standard condition to meet the applicable Federal,  State and local laws.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the licensing is not required to be provided to the City  but rather is on file with the issuing agency.  Commissioner Kundtz said the project has his support.  Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed that this is a complimentary use to a shopping center and could be a boon to the  center.  A positive synergy would be there. • Stated her support. • Advised that her mom was a first grade teacher for many years. • Suggested that the applicant work with Kate Bear regarding the landscape plan and to  ensure that no black plastic is placed under the oak trees.  Commissioner Nagpal suggested including the four­foot fencing proposed on the landscaping  plan.  Planner Cynthia McCormick said that a detail is already on the plan set and it would be  required to be included on the landscape plan.  Chair Cappello asked if there are any issues with allowing a Variation to Standards for  parking. 21 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 20  Commissioner Rodgers said that she has no problems with this, as there are a number of  ways to access the property.  There is good circulation and it is easy to share with the  shopping center next door.  Commissioner Hlava said that there is no current condition requiring submittal of a landscape  plan.  Would such a condition be added?  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes.  Commissioner Hlava said that she can make the findings for this Conditional Use Permit and  added that the provision of a landscape plan is important.  She said that the Variation of  Standards for a parking deficiency of just four spaces is no problem.  She added that this  would be a wonderful bi­lingual school and recounted how she recently visited a friend who  has young schildren who are impressively tri­lingual in French, German and English.  Commissioner Kumar said that with the added condition to provide a landscape plan, he too is  in favor of this application including the Variation in Standards for the parking.  Commissioner Zhao said that she could make all the findings including for the Variation in  Standards for the parking.  She said that there is a need and demand for bi­lingual Montessori  schools and this one will be a great addition to the Saratoga community.  Chair Cappello said he can make all the findings and has no problem with the Variation in  Standards for the parking.  He cautioned against this site giving up any parking in the future  as to do so could jeopardize this Use Permit.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer edited Condition 1, at the end adding, “In addition, the  applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan (with fencing design shown) which shall be  subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and the City Arborist  prior to issuance of a building permit.”  Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz,  the Planning Commission granted Conditional Use Permit approval  (Application #CUP08­0011) to located a Day Care Facility in an existing  building on property located at 12000 Saratoga­Sunnyvale Road, changing  the date called out in the resolution to 10/22/2008, by the following roll call  vote:  AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao  NOES: None  ABSENT: None  ABSTAIN: None  Chair Cappello congratulated the applicants for bringing another gem into the community.  *** 22 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2008 Page 21  DIRECTOR’S ITEMS  Director John Livingstone reminded that a condition had been imposed when the Use Permit  for St. Michael’s Church was amended last year that offered the church and its neighbors the  opportunity to submit update letters after September 19, 2008, on how the conditions of  approval are being met.  Letters received have been distributed to the Commission and the  Commission may decide if they want to take any sort of action.  Commissioner Hlava said that it would be helpful if residents understood the process for  making complaints.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that someti mes complaints come up when Code  Enforcement staff is not at work.  He suggested that residents contact the Sheriff’s Office after  regular office hours and those complaints will in turn be brought to CE staff for follow up.  Commissioner Nagpal restated that during office hours, reports could be made directly with  the City’s Code Enforcement staff.  After normal office hours, residents should report  immediate problems to the attention of the Sheriff’s office.  City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that third party complaints are necessary to document  any infractions.  Chair Cappello asked the Commission if any action is required this evening.  Commissioner Hlava said that there is no action to take at this time.  Commissioner Nagpal stressed the need to document complaints.  Director John Livingstone reminded the Commission that there is just one meeting each in  November and December.  There are five items on the November agenda including the Fence  Ordinance.  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 9:13 p.m.  MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:  Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ADR08-0011 – 18774 Dundee Avenue Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Design Review to construct 693 sq. ft. accessory structure in required rear yard 2B Owner: Steve Dalal Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner 3B Meeting Date: November 12, 2008 APN: 389-17-046 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 1B18774 Dundee Avenue 51 2 0BEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 03/13/08 Application complete: 10/16/08 Notice published: 10/28/08 Mailing completed: 10/20/08 Posting completed: 11/06/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Design Review (ADR) approval to construct a new single-story detached recreation room within the required rear setback. The structure is approximately 693 sq. ft. Per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-80.030 (d) (1), a CUP is required for a cabana, recreation room, or similar structure to be located within a required rear setback. The maximum height of 10 ft. may be allowed, as long as the accessory structure is at least 12 ft. from the rear property line. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure will be not higher than 10 ft. The total floor area of the all structures (main residence, garage, and proposed accessory structure) on the property will be 2,967 sq. ft. The total allowable floor area is 3,200 sq. ft., as established per SMC Section 15-45.030 (d). No protected trees are required for removal within this application. One protected tree is within vicinity of construction, but as conditioned, protective measures will be added to maintain the trees safety. The net lot size on 18774 Dundee Avenue is 10,000 sq. ft. and the site is zoned R-1- 10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. 52 Application No. ADR08-0011; 18774 Dundee Ave. 3 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M-10) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 10,000 sq. ft.; Net: 10,000 sq. ft. SLOPE: Not Applicable (< 1% slope) GRADING REQUIRED: Grading will not be required. Approximately 45 cubic yards of soil will be removed from the site in order to construct the foundation of the accessory structure. Excavation is not counted toward grading quantities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new accessory structure is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303 (e), “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 of Article 19 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This exemption allows for the construction and location of accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include grey and green tones such as “Ashforn”, “Martini Shaker”, “Rock of Ages”, and “Hazel’s Court”. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification # Windows Aluminum Windows All Weather Series 3000 Wall Finish Mid Dark Gray/Green earth-tone paints (Kelly-Moore). Top Color to be “Martini Shaker”, Bellyband Color to be “Ashforn”, Bottom Color to be “Rock of Ages” and Exterior Door Color to be “Hazel’s Coat”. Sand Finish Stucco Siding Corrugated Metal / Zincalume Plus finish ASC Building Products Roof Metal Roof / Zincalume Plus ASC Building Products Garage Door Clear Anodized Aluminum finish Clopay Avante Series 53 Application No. ADR08-0011; 18774 Dundee Ave. 4 PROJECT DATA: R-1-10,000 Zoning Net Site Area: 10,000 Proposed Required Site Coverage Maximum Allowable: 6,000 sq. ft. (60%) Residence: 1,784 sq. ft. Driveway Strips / Walkway / Pads: 1,577 sq. ft. Decking: 515 sq. ft. Garage 490 sq. ft. New Accessory Structure 693 sq. ft. TOTAL Site Coverage 5,059 sq. ft. (50.6%) Floor Area Maximum Allowable: 3,200 sq. ft. Existing First Floor Area: 1,784 sq. ft. Existing Garage Area: 490 sq. ft. TOTAL Existing Floor Area 2,274 sq. ft. Proposed First Floor Area: 1,784 sq. ft. Proposed Garage Area: 490 sq. ft. Proposed Accessory Structure(s): 693 sq. ft. TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 2,967 sq. ft. Setbacks Minimum Required: Front: 91 ft. 6 in. 25 ft. Rear: 12 ft. 6 ft.F 1 F Left Side: 35 ft. 10 in. 8 ft.F 2 F Right Side: 9 ft. 8 ft. Height Lowest Elevation Point: 0 ft. Highest Elevation Point: 10 ft. Average Elevation Point: 10 ft. Proposed Topmost Point: 10 ft. 1 Per SMC Section 15-80.030(d)(1), Upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to Article 15-55, cabanas, garages, carports, recreation rooms, hobby shops and other similar structures may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each three feet of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet in the structure is still located within the required rear setback area. 2 SMC 15-65.160, Non-conforming sites. 54 Application No. ADR08-0011; 18774 Dundee Ave. 5 PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant has requested approval to construct a 693 sq. ft. accessory structure in the rear of the property. The architectural style is modern and will include metal siding, a metal roof, aluminum windows, and a stucco exterior. The proposed accessory structure’s exterior surface and colors will be consistent with the main residence and renovated garage. The structure primary use will be a recreation and entertainment room for the family and will include a media room, a game room, and a bathroom. The accessory structure will not have a fireplace. The total floor area of all structures will be 2,967 sq. ft. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure will be not higher than 10 ft. The height will be accomplished by lowering the accessory structure footprint grade by approximately 1.9 ft. The grading will create approximately 45 cubic yards of soil that will need to be removed from the lot. The net lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. The lot has no slope. Architectural Style A Modern structure with contemporary shed elements including a shed roof, a combination of metal siding and earth tone stucco exterior, and asymmetrical windows. Trees No trees are proposed for removal. One (1) protected tree is exposed to possible impacts from the new construction. The protected tree (Chinese Pistachio) has a canopy within five (5) feet of the proposed accessory structure. A report from a Certified Arborist (and a peer review from the City Arborist) determined the tree was in fair to moderate condition with an appraised value of $5,200. Staff recommends a condition that the Owner installs a protective tree fence and obtains and submits a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $5,200 prior to obtaining building division permits. The security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of the construction project to ensure the protection of the tree. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist, the bond can be released. Energy Efficiency Skylights will be incorporated into the accessory structure for natural interior light. The modest height will not block solar access to adjacent neighbors. The existing trees will remain and create a buffer from wind. The passive solar structure is designed for natural heat venting instead of the installation of a cooling system. Metal roofs have been shown to be less effected by weather extremes over time, maintaining surface properties and resisting soiling. Both painted and unpainted metal panels maintain their energy efficiency better over time than any other roofing system.F 3 F Furthermore, Hollywood driveways were installed to replace the standard driveway. This results in a decrease of water runoff into the City’s storm drains and an increase in infiltration and groundwater recharge. 3 Cool Metal Roofing, Cool Metal Roofing – The Energy Efficient Choice (n.d.) Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Buildings Technology Center (Oak Ridge, Tennessee) 55 Application No. ADR08-0011; 18774 Dundee Ave. 6 Landscaping The applicant had installed front yard landscaping in the middle of 2008. The landscaping includes Molded Wax Agave, New Zealand Flax, and Mexican Feather Grass. Much of the vegetation require infrequent to low watering and are drought resistant. The standard driveway has been replaced with a Hollywood driveway. A Hollywood driveway has a dividing strip of grass or ground in order to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Fireplaces The proposed structure will have no fireplaces. Neighbor Correspondence Staff received signed neighbor notification forms from all adjacent property occupants. As of the drafting of the staff report, no negative comments have been received by Staff. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following General Plan Policies: UConservation Element Policy 6.0U – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project proposes a relatively small recreation room in the rear of the main residence. The exterior will utilize gray and green earth tone colors, consistent with the main residence and redesigned detached garage. The recreation room will have a maximum height of 10 feet and will not be seen from the public right-of-way. All existing protected trees on the property will be maintained and protected, as conditioned per the City Arborist. The use of earth tone colors and existing protected trees will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. ULand Use Element Policy 5.0U – 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 a Conditional Use and Design Approval. Conditional Use Permit Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Conditional Use Permit findings stated in SMC Section 15-55.070: 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 in which the site is located. An accessory structure is typically a principally permitted use. A Conditional Use Permit allows a property owner to locate an accessory structure closer to the rear property line. Staff believes the height and placement of the use will still ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for the main residence and adjacent properties near the project site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 56 Application No. ADR08-0011; 18774 Dundee Ave. 7 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. The proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code as staff reviewed the project, conditioned it accordingly, and has recommended approval. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed accessory structure will not adversely affect surrounding properties. Along with the proposed setbacks, 10 foot height maximum, and minimal roof pitch, the proposed accessory structure should not distress neighboring and adjacent property owners. The use of the recreation room will be for the family that lives on the property, which means density will not increase. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in SMC Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure is 10 feet. The structure will be located in the rear of the property behind the main residence, approximately 12 feet from the rear property line, and ranging from 36 ft. to 9 ft. from the side-yard property lines. The structure will have a shed roof, with the lowest point nearest the rear property line. As the roof ascends in pitch, the structure moves farther away from the rear. The right side elevation (9 ft. from the property line) has no windows, providing relief for the adjacent neighbor regarding privacy. This shed roof design and window placement will assist the project in not interfering with the views from or the privacy of abutting neighbors. The existing trees in the rear of the property increase privacy of adjacent neighbors. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The finding can be made in the affirmative in that no protected trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has added a condition to preserve the existing protected tree by means of tree fencing and a security bond. Conditions from that memo have been added to the resolution in order to preserve the existing natural landscape. 57 Application No. ADR08-0011; 18774 Dundee Ave. 8 (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed project is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. There are no Native or Heritage Trees on site. In addition, the project, as conditioned, would not impact protected trees on the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed accessory structure is substantially smaller than the main residence. It will not be seen from the public right of way. The applicant is proposing an earth tone color pallet consistent with all other structures on the lot, minimizing the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately single - story. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood in that it will be lower than most structures around the subject property. The accessory structure will be out of site of the public right-of way, screened by the main residence and existing landscaping. This finding can be found in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The project is conditioned to require retention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. The site coverage is less than the 60% required by the City, providing a greater site area of water infiltration on the site. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, no grading is proposed. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification templates. 3. Arborist Reports and tree fencing by City Arborist Kate Bear, dated October 28, 2008. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". 58 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. XX-XXX Application No. ADR08-0011 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Design Review Dalal; 18774 Dundee Avenue Approval to construct a single-story 693 square foot accessory structure within the required rear setback area at 18774 Dundee Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Design Review approval to construct a new single-story accessory structure within the required rear yard. The accessory structure will be 693 square feet in floor area and be no more than 10 feet in height. The structure will be located in the rear portion of a 10,000 square foot lot located at 18774 Dundee Avenue, located in the R-1-10,000 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 project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (e), “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 of Article 19 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of accessory structures; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Design approval, and the following findings specified in the Saratoga General Plan have been determined: ƒ Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project proposes a relatively small recreation room in the rear of the main residence. The exterior will utilize gray and green earth tone colors, consistent with the main residence and redesigned detached garage. The recreation room will have a maximum height of 10 feet and will not be seen from the public right- of-way. All existing protected trees on the property will be maintained and protected, as conditioned per the City Arborist. The use of earth tone colors and existing protected trees, the rural atmosphere of Saratoga will be protected. ƒ 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 59 with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for a Conditional Use and Design Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings specified in the Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-55.070 and Section 15-45.080 and the City’s Residential Design Handbook have been determined: The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Conditional Use Permit findings stated in SMC Section 15-55.070: 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 in which the site is located. An accessory structure is typically a principally permitted use in the R-1 10,000 zoning district. A Conditional Use Permit allows a property owner to locate an accessory structure closer to the rear property line. Staff believes the height and placement of the accessory structure will still ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for the main residence and adjacent properties near the project site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. The proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code as staff reviewed the project, conditioned it accordingly, and has recommended approval. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed accessory structure will not adversely affect surrounding properties. Along with the proposed setbacks, 10 foot height maximum, and minimal roof pitch, the proposed accessory structure should not distress neighboring and adjacent property owners. The use of the recreation room will be for the family that lives on the property, which means density will not increase. Adjacent property owners have legal non-conforming structures within their rear setbacks, creating a sense of consistency within the immediate neighborhood. 60 The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in SMC Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure is 10 feet. The structure will be located in the rear of the property behind the main residence, approximately 12 feet from the rear property line, and ranging from 36 ft. to 9 ft. from the side-yard property lines. The structure will have a shed roof, with the lowest point nearest the rear property line. As the roof ascends in pitch, the structure moves farther away from the rear. The right side elevation (9 ft. from the property line) has no windows, providing relief for the adjacent neighbor regarding privacy. This shed roof design and window placement will assist the project in not interfering with the views from or the privacy of abutting neighbors. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The finding can be made in the affirmative in that no protected trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has added a condition to preserve the existing protected tree by means of tree fencing and a security bond. Conditions from that memo have been added to the resolution in order to preserve the existing natural landscape. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed project is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. There are no Native or Heritage Trees on site. In addition, the project, as conditioned, would not impact protected trees that are on site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed accessory structure is substantially smaller than the main residence. It will not be seen from the public right of way. The applicant is proposing an earth tone color pallet consistent with all other structures on the lot, minimizing the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately one single-story. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood in that it will lower than most structures around the subject property. The accessory structure will be out of site of the public right-of way, screened by the main residence and existing landscaping. This finding can be found in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, no grading is proposed. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 61 (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that 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, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application number of ADR08-0011 for a Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Design Review is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS - CITY ATTORNEY 1. 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on “Exhibit A” (incorporated by reference, date stamped October 27, 2008) in compliance stated in this resolution. 3. Any proposed changes – including, but not limited to façade design and materials – to the approved set of plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved structure will be approved by Staff. Downgrades may include, but not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director (CDD), or his designated representative. Any and all changes may require review by the Planning Commission. 4. The project shall incorporate colors and materials as illustrated on the Finish Material Board date stamped March 13, 2008. 5. The following shall be required and/or included in the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: 62 a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor (LLS) of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans.” 6. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 7. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 8. Existing native shrubs and ground cover, if applicable, shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 9. All exterior lighting proposed shall not produce glare or spillover to adjacent properties or provide a distraction to vehicular traffic to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 10. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval demonstrating how all stormwater will be retained on-site to the maximum extent feasible, and incorporating the New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices on file with the City. If all stormwater cannot be retained on-site, an explanatory note shall be provided on the approved plans and subject to prior City review and approval. Stormwater runoff from the project site (if any after compliance with this paragraph) shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 11. No HVAC mechanical equipment shall be allowed between the lot line and any required front, side or rear setback line. CITY ARBORIST 12. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 13. All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated October 28, 2008, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans. 63 14. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism, as approved by the CDD, in the amount of $5,200 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 15. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. PUBLIC WORKS 16. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department if necessary for construction within the public right-of-way. FIRE DEPARMENT 17. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. 64 Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months 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 12th day of November 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, 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 Date 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REVIEW 18774 Dundee Avenue Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Application #: ARB08-0072 Phone (408) 868-1276 Owner: Steve Dalal kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN 389-17-046 Report History: #1 Date: October 28, 2008 INTRODUCTION The owner has submitted a plan to build a new accessory structure on the property. A site plan of the proposed layout was submitted for review, along with an arborist report including an appraised value. There is one protected tree on the property, a Chinese pistache in fair to good condition. It can be adequately protected with tree protective fencing during construction of the accessory structure. This project has approval to proceed from the arborist, with the conditions noted below. SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION One Chinese pistache protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction was inventoried for this project. An arborist report for this project was provided and included the appraised value for the tree. This data was reviewed and accepted for the project. The submitted diagram did not include any utilities. If utilities will be connecting the accessory structure to the house, trenching for them should remain outside of the canopy of the Chinese pistache tree. Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a security deposit in the amount of $5,200, which is equal to 100% of the appraised value of the Chinese pistache, is required. The security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. Appraisal values are calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000, in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the map showing the location of the tree and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of building plans. Page 1 of 1 72 18774 Dundee Avenue Page 2 of 2 2. Tree protective fencing shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Tree protective fencing shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Tree protective fencing shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to obtaining building division permits. 3. Owner shall obtain a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $5,200 for the Chinese pistache prior to obtaining building division permits. The security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project to ensure the protection of the tree. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist, the bond can be released. 4. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 5. Any pruning or root pruning of trees on site must be performed by a state licensed tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 6. Excavation for new utilities is not permitted under tree canopies. Utilities include electrical, drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping. 7. If landscape work will be done as part of this project, design it as follows: a. Design irrigation so that valve boxes, controllers and main and lateral lines remain outside of tree canopies. b. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. c. Trenching for irrigation lines shall remain outside of tree canopies. Only drip irrigation on top of grade (underneath mulch) shall be used under trees. d. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees. e. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil under trees. f. Establish edging material proposed under trees on top of existing soil grade using stakes. Attachments: Tree Security Deposit form Map showing tree locations and tree protective fencing 73 Legend Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy 18774 Dundee Avenue 74 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 21st day of October , 2008, that I deposited 89 Notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-55.060 and Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 389-17-046 Address: 18774 Dundee Avenue that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 75 October 21, 2008 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 389-17-046 STEVE DALAL 18774 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-15-055 DANIEL C OKONKWO OR CURRENT OWNER 18859 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4645 389-15-056 BLAKE & JESSICA HOMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18873 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4645 389-15-057 LIZA Y HO OR CURRENT OWNER 13206 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4613 389-15-058 HAMID & MANSOUREH GHAHRAMANI OR CURRENT OWNER 13192 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4613 389-15-059 MICHAEL TSAKIRIS OR CURRENT OWNER 13178 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4613 389-15-066 MICHAEL J & KATHRYN LANDERS OR CURRENT OWNER 13179 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 389-15-067 WILBUR & JEAN CATABAY OR CURRENT OWNER 13199 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 389-15-068 CHI LAU OR CURRENT OWNER 13221 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 389-15-069 PHILIP MANELA OR CURRENT OWNER 13235 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 389-15-070 KHUE & THU DUONG OR CURRENT OWNER 18843 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4645 389-15-071 GO-MAUS OR CURRENT OWNER 18803 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4648 389-15-072 DOMINIC & DOMENICA MASTRANGIOLI 574 ELVIS DR SAN JOSE CA 95123-4834 389-15-073 TEHSHIH CHIEN OR CURRENT OWNER 13220 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 389-15-074 RONNY K & ANNA GREEN OR CURRENT OWNER 13206 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 389-15-075 EUGENE & OLGA LAPIDOUS OR CURRENT OWNER 13192 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 389-15-076 JAMES E KOLOTOUROS OR CURRENT OWNER 13178 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 389-15-083 JULIA M & JONATHAN MOHN OR CURRENT OWNER 13179 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 389-15-084 MARGARET WILLIAMSON OR CURRENT OWNER 13193 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 389-15-085 CHARLOTTE S WONG PO BOX 2985 SARATOGA CA 95070-0985 389-15-086 ADELE P HIROSE OR CURRENT OWNER 13221 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 389-15-087 RHODA A VERNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13235 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 389-15-088 MANDANA MORID 18560 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5611 389-15-089 E STAFFORD 1052 N MANOR DR TULARE CA 93274-2169 389-17-009 WILLARD L & ROSE SIEVERT OR CURRENT OWNER 18866 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 76 389-17-010 LARRY H & PATRICIA MCAVOY OR CURRENT OWNER 18854 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-011 DANIEL R & BETH ELLIOTT OR CURRENT OWNER 18842 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-012 MARY MURPHY OR CURRENT OWNER 18830 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-013 MARIA LEUPOLD OR CURRENT OWNER 18802 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-014 EMIN E & VJOLLCA ELMAZAJ OR CURRENT OWNER 18788 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-015 CHRISTIAN NGUYEN OR CURRENT OWNER 18774 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-016 AMIN & SEPIDEH ZOUFONOUN OR CURRENT OWNER 18760 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-017 THOMAS BLACK 4473 DOGWOOD AVE SEAL BEACH CA 90740-3039 389-17-018 AYDIN & PINAR ONUR OR CURRENT OWNER 18732 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-17-019 PETER C & DENISE COMMANDEUR OR CURRENT OWNER 13338 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4603 389-17-020 MATO & ANNETTE IVANKO OR CURRENT OWNER 13324 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4603 389-17-021 MARY H & GAIREL GANDRUD 24 CASTLEWOOD DR PLEASANTON CA 94566-9728 389-17-022 MILOVAN KRNJAJIC OR CURRENT OWNER 13296 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4603 389-17-023 THELMA EVANS OR CURRENT OWNER 13282 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4603 389-17-024 C VAN METER OR CURRENT OWNER 13268 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4603 389-17-025 CHUN-PUNG CHIEN 22005 DORSEY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5336 389-17-026 JAMES R BLOUNT 17077 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9607 389-17-027 PETER Y YOUN OR CURRENT OWNER 13226 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4603 389-17-030 JOHN A MOLSBERRY OR CURRENT OWNER 18708 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4639 389-17-031 JANET L NACE OR CURRENT OWNER 13215 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4604 389-17-032 NADINE REDDING OR CURRENT OWNER 13239 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4604 389-17-033 COLLEEN K BUTTERFIELD OR CURRENT OWNER 13255 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4604 389-17-034 WANG & CHAO OR CURRENT OWNER 18731 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4608 389-17-035 BILLY G & CLEOTA WOOLMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18745 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4608 389-17-036 ELIZABETH STEPANEK OR CURRENT OWNER 13238 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4631 389-17-037 SCOTT A & LILIAN KLEINBERG OR CURRENT OWNER 13214 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4631 389-17-038 THOMAS L CLIMER OR CURRENT OWNER 18724 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4639 389-17-039 VICTORIA S & PHILIP GARCIA 20330 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4350 389-17-040 PU C HSU 20745 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5807 389-17-041 JEAN H WILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 18844 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 77 389-17-042 BEUSELINCK OR CURRENT OWNER 18830 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-17-043 WANLESS LIVING TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 18816 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-17-044 MARYAM IMAM 195 ALVARADO AVE LOS ALTOS CA 94022-1220 389-17-045 NEZIR MEDIC OR CURRENT OWNER 18788 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-17-046 STEVE DALAL OR CURRENT OWNER 18774 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-17-047 EVAN A & CLAUDINE JUDD OR CURRENT OWNER 18760 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-17-048 MICHAEL LYNCH OR CURRENT OWNER 18746 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-17-049 XHEVDET & HAJRIJE KRAJA OR CURRENT OWNER 18732 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 389-17-050 TSUCHIHASHI FAMILY 1998 TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 13283 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4652 389-17-051 ROBERT L & KAYLENE THURSTON 14324 CORDWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5628 389-17-052 BRYAN P & SUSAN SABA OR CURRENT OWNER 18705 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-053 MOHD N AFTAB OR CURRENT OWNER 18733 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-054 KENNETH D MILLS OR CURRENT OWNER 18747 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-055 ADAM I & MARILEE WALB OR CURRENT OWNER 18761 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-056 REDWOOD REAL EST LLC PO BOX 4470 STATELINE NV 89449-4470 389-17-057 CRAIG & KRISTINA PARK OR CURRENT OWNER 18789 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-058 STEVEN L LANGLOIS OR CURRENT OWNER 18803 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-059 BASIL KASNAKIS OR CURRENT OWNER 18817 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-060 PHILIP & CHRISTINE CAI OR CURRENT OWNER 18831 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-061 NICOLAS & LENA GIKKAS OR CURRENT OWNER 18845 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-062 VICTOR & JEANNIE CHUA OR CURRENT OWNER 18859 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-063 AKBAR & PARVIN ABDOLLAHI OR CURRENT OWNER 18873 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-17-064 JOHN K & DOROTHY YEARWOOD OR CURRENT OWNER 18887 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 389-19-037 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 13561 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 389-42-001 FRANK D & SUSAN LINN OR CURRENT OWNER 18718 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 389-42-002 JALEH A POWERS OR CURRENT OWNER 14023 ABDULLA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-4632 389-42-003 DAVID M & DORLY LOPEZ OR CURRENT OWNER 14035 ABDULLA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-4632 389-42-004 SHOBA TRIVADI 36931 NICHOLS AVE FREMONT CA 94536-1605 389-42-012 WAYNE D EVANS OR CURRENT OWNER 14022 ABDULLA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-4632 389-42-013 TIENSON & PENNY HUANG OR CURRENT OWNER 18690 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4616 78 389-42-014 KEITH & SUSAN ODOM OR CURRENT OWNER 18816 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Alex Lantsberg, Research Dept. 265 Hegenberger Rd., Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94621 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Michael Fossati 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 79 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 12th day of November, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: ADR08-0011 / 18774 Dundee Avenue APPLICANT/OWNER: Dalal APN: 389-17-046 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Design Approval (ADR) to construct a new detached accessory structure within the required rear setback. The structure is approximately 693 sq. ft. Per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-80.030 (d) (1), a CUP is required for a cabana, recreation room, or similar structure to be located within a required rear setback. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure will be no higher than 10 ft. No protected trees are required for removal. The net lot size on 18774 Dundee Avenue is 10,000 sq. ft. and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008. 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. Michael Fossati Assistant Planner (408) 868-1212 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360