Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-01 packetCity of Saratoga 0-0 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, June 12, 9:00 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting — PLEASE NOTE NEW LOCATION I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Grens, Hunter, Koepernik, Peck, Peepari, Wyman Absent: King Staff: Bradley, Livingstone Guests: Mark Copeland, Bob Foster, Jason Erdahl, Bob Foster B. Approval of minutes from 5/08/01 & 5/14/01 The minutes were approved 6 -0 C. Posting of the Agenda 0 Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday June 7, 2001 D. Oral Communications None E. Written Communications /FYI None Il. Old Business (Because the Oddfellows architectural team are the only guests their item was heard first) A. Discussion of Mission Statement Ideas. The Commission requested that this item be postponed to the July I Ot", 2001 meeting. III. New Business B. 14413 Big Basin Way - California Living awning ro The Commission concluded that the awning color was not inappropriate for the Village. On their site visit that morning they noted several yellow awnings. Most of the brightly colored awnings had faded. The Commission decided to take the issue up at their July 101h, 2001 meeting to discuss awning materials and colors that would be acceptable in the Village. The motion was made to leave the awning as is. Approved 6 -0. C. 14395 Big Basin Way - Union 76 Gas station - reconsideration of request to install a carwash. Commissioner Koepernik started the discussion by saying that the newly proposed location was very poor as circulation around the building and the bank would be much too tight and he was opposed to the location. Commissioner Peck noted his dismay that the service bays were gone. Commissioner Wyman stated her objection to a car wash at this location, indicating it was not appropriate for the Village and would cause significant traffic circulation problems. Commissioner Hunter also stated her objection, indicating that circulation would be problematic as there would be no space behind the carwash for people to get to the ATM machines and traffic would back up at the side of the carwash. She was also concerned that access to the parking behind the businesses on Big Basin would be difficult to get to from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road if cal -wash users were coming in and out. She stated that it was an inappropriate use for the entrance to the historic area and would cause an offensive entry view of the Village. Commissioner Grens stated that she was concerned with the amount of traffic it would bring and wouldn't want to see it at the entrance to the Village. Motion to recommend denial of the carwash. Approved 6 -0. D. 14500 Fruitvale Avenue - Oddfellows - request for review of proposed expansion plans in preliminary design phase The architectural team introduced themselves. They stated that they are working for a development company in partnership with the Oddfellows, Pacific Retirements Services. There are currently 30 double room occupancy units in the Lodge building and they plan on creating 14 premium individual units, a common facility, dining room and main kitchen. This building will serve the lowest level of care of all the housing components on the site. They won't be altering the front elevations of the building other than adding ramps and will eliminate the newer metal stairs that are not original to the building. They intend to leave the stucco exterior and tile roof, but will need to replace the windows. They plan on using a double -hung vinyl clad or painted aluminum window in the exact style as the existing windows. The existing windows are difficult for seniors to open and are not energy efficient. Commissioner Koepernik asks if they will be arched like the existing windows and will they be true divided lites? The architects say that the muttons will be both between the glass and on the outside but they will be solid panes of glass. Commissioner Hunter asks where the people living there will go and will the new units be for sale. The architects are not sure where the residences will go, but they believe they will be located to other units on site. The units will be for sale, operated by Pacific Retirement Services, a non - profit corporation. Once you buy in you are guaranteed life care beginning with independent living then assisted living and finally skilled nursing care. All of which can be provided at the Oddfellows site. Commissioner Peck asks if the Oddfellows are still involved? The architects say yes they still run the board and make all of the decisions. Discussion turns to landscaping. An asphalt parking area will become a paved and landscaped dining court and the courtyard on the opposite side will be a formally landscaped garden. The front plaza will be improved as well. Commissioner Koepernik asks about the interior changes. The architects say that the two marble staircases with iron railings will remain, some original light fixtures and the brocade ceiling in the lobby, the auditorium will remain, but there is not much else left worth saving. Commissioner Wyman says she is satisfied with the preliminary plans if they will be following Secretary of the Interior Guidelines. They say yes, they will be following the guidelines. Commissioner Peepari says that the overall concept is very good. He was concerned with how the exterior would be taken care of and is please that it will be taken back to the original and he has no problem with the interior changes. Commissioner Hunter says the plans look good however, she is concerned with what will happen to the people living there now. Commissioner Grens says that anything will be an improvement, but is also concerned for the residents. 'Commissioner Peck is impressed with the preservation of the building, asks if they will be keeping the bell. The architects say that yes they will. Commissioner Koepernik says that he would like the Secretary of the Interiors Guidelines followed and he would like a tour of the building. He wants to ensure that the windows will be designed to the original dimensions and styles. He would encourage the architects to lean toward the tougher national standards for historic restoration. He would also like to see as many of the old trees saved as possible, and elements of the interior whenever possible. He would also like photo documentation of the building and wants to be informed of the next stages of design and would like to set up a special meeting to tour the building and discuss the design plans when they have been drawn. The Commission thanks the architects for including them in the process at the preliminary stage of design. IV. Items Initiated by the Commission E. Design Signage for the Orchard adopt a tree kiosk Commissioner Koepernik states that he would like the Commission to come up with a design themselves rather than hire someone. He doesn't want to see just another square block, but would like something intriguing, along the orchard theme. He will work on some ideas and report back to the Commission. F. Review of Village Design Guidelines Continued to meeting of July 10, 2001 G. Heritage Tours Continued to meeting of July 10, 2001 V. Items Initiated by the Secretary A. None VI. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday July 10, 2001 — Planning Conference room Respectfully Submitted by, Heather Bradley (Acting HPC Secretary) John uVin90w0.0 City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2001, 8:15 a.m. Place: Meet outside the Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale, Avenue Type: Site Visit We will meet outside the Warner Hutton House and take a van to visit the following sites. 1. 14413 Big Basin Way - California Living 2. 14395 Big Basin Way - 76 Gas Station * j s► 4 City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA Date: Tuesday, June 12,9:00 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting - PLEASE NOTE NEW LOCATION I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call B. Approval of minutes from 5/08/01 & 5/14/01 C. Posting of the Agenda - Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday June 7, 2001 D. Oral Communications E. Written Communications/ FYI - II. Old Business A. Discussion of Mission Statement Ideas. III. New Business A. 14413 Big Basin Way - California Living awning B. 14395 Big Basin Way - Union 76 Gas station - reconsideration of request to install a carwash. C. 14500 Fruitvale Avenue - Oddfellows - request for review of proposed expansion plans in preliminary design phase IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. Design Signage for the Orchard adopt a tree kiosk B. Review of Village Design Guidelines C. Heritage Tours V. Items Initiated by the Secretary A. None VI. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday July 10, 2001- Planning Conference room City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 2001 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Heather G. Bradley, Secretary SUBJECT: 14413 Big Basin Way - California Living - UP -01 -006. The HPC needs to decide on the appropriateness of the awning color for this business. We will be walking the Village during our site visits to view other colors in use. The applicants preferred color samples will be available. .t City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 2001 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Heather G. Bradley, Secretary SUBJECT: 14395 Big Basin Way. - Union 76 Gas station Background In January 2001 the Commission discussed plans for a car wash at the 76 station at the corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The Commission at that time expressed disappointment at the loss of the service bays for a convenience store and felt that a car wash would be inappropriate for the Village. The reasons were that it would be unattractive, and would cause too much traffic. They also felt it was unnecessary as there is an existing car was at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at Prospect. The motion to deny was 5 -0 -1 with Commissioner Koepernik abstaining. The applicant has changed the configuration and location of the carwash based on the HPC's review and direction from the Planning Staff and the application will be going to the Planning Commission for review on June 27t". A traffic study has been prepared which concludes that there will not be a significant impact on traffic. A copy of the report is attached for reference. Recommendation The Commission must determine if revised location and configuration of the carwash is enough to warrant a recommendation of approval or whether the original concerns still make the carwash an inappropriate use for the Village Attachments Plans Traffic Analysis City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 2001 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Heather G. Bradley, Secretary SUBJECT: 14500 Fruitvale Avenue - Oddfellows Background Several years ago the city approved expansion plans at the Oddfellows facility to construct new independent living cottages and apartments, increase the number of beds at the skilled nursing home facility and construct other buildings for different types of care. The plans also involved expansion of the original Lodge Building, on the City's Heritage Resources Inventory. However, at the time no details were provided for expansion of the Lodge. The Oddfellows have hired Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects from Portland, Oregon to prepare the expansion plans for the Lodge and they would like to meet with the HPC before getting too far along in planning the project. Recommendation The Commission should review the Lodge expansion plans and ideas from the architects and give them direction and specific feedback so that they can finalize their plans. These finalized plans would also come to the HPC for review before going on to the Planning Commission for approval. Color photos of the existing building will be available at the meeting Attachments Plans t City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes Date: Tuesday, May 15,10:30 a.m. - SPECIAL MEETING Place: Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Grens, Hunter, King, Koepernik, Wyman Absent: Peck, Peepari Staff: Heather Bradley, John Cherbone Guests: Linda Gates B. Posting of the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday April 7, 2001 C. Oral Communications - None D. Written Communications/ FYI - None II. Old Business None III. New Business D. Heritage Orchard Restoration Project - Discussion with Linda Gates, Landscape Architect and John Cherbone, Public Works Director Comm. Koepernik reviews ideas for the orchard that were discussed at the April. The Commission would like to have all the trees that need to be replaced done at once time, they would like to have a well for watering and windmill and or a water tower. The Commissions goal is to have the orchard last another 100 years. The pathway issue has already been discussed and decided, no interior paths except as needed for special events, then Matt Novakavich can roll the dirt flat. The commission wants to promote exhibits at the library and ongoing education projects. John Cherbone, Public Works Director says that a permanent exhibit space can be worked into the final library design. Comm. Koepernik says that the Commission would also like to have a barn or drying shed structure included in the plan. Linda Gates asks for clarification on whether the non - orchard trees should remain in the orchard. The Commission indicates that the oaks should remain but the photocarpus should come out. Since there are a lot of trees coming out in that area it is discussed that that would make a good location for the barn and or drying shed. Linda Gates asks if the barn structure will be solely by the Novakavich's or for public purposes. After some discussion is it decided that the barn /drying shed would be used for orchard maintenence purposes only but could be visited by school kids on special occasions. It would not have any meeting area or parking except for work trucks. Linda Gates asks if the water tower or windmill would be decorative only and would they want a new structure or try to obtain an old structure. The Commission decides to make that decision later but definitely want to include it a location for the structure on the Orchard plan. The Commission also wants to initiate an adopt a tree program. They discuss possible means of doing that and decide to make it a work of art which would include a map of the orchard and the nameplates. Money generated from the project would be spent by the HPC for programs that would promote the orchard and historic efforts by the Commission. The Commission asks about the cost of a well. John Cherbone says that a new well will cost approximately $41,000, and is currently costs about $10,000 a year for water for the orchard so the well should pay for itself in four years. Comm. Koepernik also mentions that the Commission would like a new sign for the orchard. Linda Gates says that the new Library sign will be a stone design like the one already used at City Hall. It is suggested that the HPC get in contact with the Library Commission for more information about the sign. The Commission asks about how many trees have been transplanted. Linda Gates says that 62 have been transplanted, 24 are at the corner and these are all prunes, others are apricots that have been used to fill in where there were gaps in the orchard. There are 206 dead trees and 75 trees that are almost dead. These will all be replaced. Tree reports have been done which indicate that the cherries along the creek have oak root fungus and gophers are also a problem with cherries so other types of trees will be used near the creek. The commission discusses possible ideas for a barn, Commissioner Koepernik suggest an old looking barn with wood siding. Commissioner Hunter suggests an open style would also be attractive. Commissioner Hunter asks if park development fees can be used for the project. John Cherbone says that yes park in lieu fees can be used. Linda Gates thanks the Commission and says she will put all the ideas together and work with John Cherbone to put together a budget. The Commission thanks Linda Gates and Matt Novakavich for all of their hard on the project. IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. None V. Items Initiated by the Secretary A. None VI. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday June 12, 2001- Planning Conference Room Respectfully Submitted by, Heather Bradley (Acting HPC Secretary) I City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, May 8,9:00 a.m. Place: Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Grens, Hunter, King, Koepernik, Peck, Wyman Absent: Peepari Staff: Heather Bradley Guests: Gretchen Mair, Noel Cross, John Turchen, Gary Kohlsaat B. Approval of minutes from 4/10/01 and 4/17/01 Minutes were approved 6 -0 C. Posting of the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday April 5, 2001 E. Oral Communications Mr. John Turchen of RRM Design Group, Fire Station architects, showed the Commission a revised color board for the station as they had requested at the last meeting. It included tile samples for the base, decorative tiles for the tower and roof tiles as well as stucco colors. Commissioners Hunter and Grens expressed concerns with the metal railings that were shown on the color board. The previous color board that was shown had wood lattice railing Commissioners Hunter and Grens feel,.the previous example was more of a Mission style rather than a Spanish style. Commissioner Wyman moves approval of the color board. Approved 4 -0 -2 ( Grens and Hunter abstain) F. Written Communications/ FYI - Heritage Tree Ordinance article Invitation to Sunnyvale Heritage Orchard dedication Invitation to Campbell tea and walking tour Invitation to workshop Finding and Keeping Members CPF quarterly i II. Old Business None III. New Business E. 19221 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road -The Tibbett House - UP -01 -006. Request to demolish an existing cabana / green house attached to the main residence and construct a detached cabana and additions off the rear of the residence. Staff notes correspondence received from the architect on the site visit. Commissioner Wyman comments on the beauty of the house and property and says the additions will add to the beauty. The commissioners agree. Commissioner Peck says he was surprised to see how beautiful the property was as you can't see much from the road. Commissioner Koepernik feels it is necessary to allow the height exception to build the cabana to 141/2 feet in order to match the original architectural detail of the house. Commissioner Peck further comments that the structure is not visible and shouldn't be a concern to the neighbors. Commissioner Wyman moves approval. Approved 6 -0. F. 18888 Hayfield Ct. - The Hayfield House - Progress update on restoration of the main residence and request for renovation approval for Guest House. Gary Kohlsaat, project architect passes photos of the house before the remodeling work began. Commissioner Peck asks if the owners have been in touch with the previous owners. Mr. Kohlsaat says yes to some extent. They would like to invite some of them back when the work is finished. Commissioner Peck says he didn't realize the condition the house was in until they saw the state of the guesthouse. Commissioner Wyman says she appreciates the level of detail and care that has gone into this renovation.- Commissioner Koepernik says that the Commission should have been informed prior to the start of work, but he also appreciates the care that is going into the renovation. He would like the Commission to visit the property one more time before it is finished and would like to see the progress of the guesthouse renovation when the stucco is removed. Mr. Kohlsaat suggests this can be done together sometime in the next few months. Mr. Kohlsaat states that they have been careful to save all of the materials so they can compare them to the new materials they are using. The Commission also states that they are very impressed with the amount of landscaping and the quality and size of the trees that will be going in. Commissioner Koepernik moves to approve the guesthouse renovation. Approved 6 -0. G. 18870 Hayfield Ct. - DR -01 -017. Request for design Review approval to construct a new single family home for use as a caretaker's residence for the Hayfield House. The Commissioners are happy with the design of the caretaker's residence and are happy to see the style and details so closely match the main residence. Mr. Kohlsaat states that he is using the same roof pitch as the main house and will have to lower the structure into the lot in order to avoid the height limit. He feels it is necessary to match the main house. Other details will also match including the -front porch and windows. The thinks this will be a welcome change from the other new homes in this subdivision. Commissioner King moves approval. Approved 6 -0. 1 j H. Heritage Orchard Restoration Project - This item will be discussed at a Special Meeting on Tuesday May 1511, with Linda Gates and John Cherbone IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. Discussion of Mission Statement Ideas. The Commission discusses the Mission Statements proposed by Commissioner Hunter and King. Commissioner Wyman agrees to take a closer look at the ideas and rewrite them. Staff is directed to put some type of brochure together. Commissioner Hunter asks staff to make nametags for the Commissioners to wear to the reception for Tom Sullivan and possibly for meetings as well. The Commission would also like to present plaques in recognition of homeowner who have done an excellent job remodeling their heritage home. Possibilities are discussed. V. Items Initiated by the Secretary A. None VI. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday May 15, 2001 (Special Meeting) - Warner Hutton House Respectfully Submitted by, Heather Bradley (Acting HPC Secretary) Union 76 Service Station Proposed Car Wash Addition Traffic Analysis ,ESN F. y No.TA1837 Exp. 41-04- AFF�G \\ OF CAt!F�% Prepared for Ratra Enterprises Prepared by. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. D EGEE � V E 0 May 2, 2001 MAY 1 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA CON110UNITt' DEIVELO?N'ENT This report describes the traffic analysis conducted by Hexagon for the proposed car wash addition to the Union 76 Service Station located on the northwest corner of the intersection at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road/Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way /Saratoga Avenue in Saratoga. Introduction The project consists of the proposed addition of a car wash on the site currently occupied by the Union 76 service station and mini - market. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The traffic analysis consists of two separate components: (1) the off -site traffic impact analysis, and (2) the on -site access and circulation analysis. Off -Site Traffic Impact Analysis The off -site traffic impact analysis consists of the determination of intersection level of service.at the following intersection: Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road/Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way /Saratoga Avenue. The intersection is hereafter referred to as Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Big Basin Way. Intersection level of service (LOS) is calculated for the weekday midday peak hour and the weekday PM peak hour, for the following two scenarios: Existing conditions Existing Plus Project conditions The analysis employs the Highway Capacity Manual intersection level of service method based on average vehicle delay at the intersection. The level of service was calculated using TRAFFIX — the level of service software approved for use by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. Existing Conditions Off Site Existing traffic volumes were obtained from data on file and from newly collected data. The existing traffic volumes for the mid -day peak hour (noon to 1:00 PM) were obtained by conducting traffic counts on Tuesday December 5, 2000. The existing traffic volumes for the PM peak hour were obtained from the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Update Final Report dated September 29, 2000. This count was conducted in September 1999. A comparison of the 1999 AM peak -hour volumes with the 2000 AM peak - hour volumes shows that the volume at the intersection increased by 11 percent. Considering that traffic volumes can vary by this much from day to day during a given week, the 11 percent higher volume in 2000 should not necessarily be considered significant. A seasonal adjustment factor was applied to the existing counts in order to account for the possibility of lower- than - average volumes being present during December. Hexagon was unable to obtain data on seasonal variation in traffic volumes on the off -site roadway facilities. However, there were data available from the Union 76 that pertains to the monthly variation in volume of gasoline sold. Based on these data, a seasonal adjustment factor was derived for the volumes on site and, for lack of better data, this factor was assumed applicable to overall traffic volumes in the area. All counts were consequently increased by 13 percent. The existing mid -day and PM peak -hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure.2 and Figure 3 Union 76 Service Station Proposed Car Wash Addition respectively. Note that the driveway volumes provided do not include the traffic associated with the adjacent uses such as the bank. The analysis showed that the intersection currently operates at an acceptable LOS D during each of the mid -day and PM peak hours. The level of service standard is LOS E or better. Existing Plus Project Conditions Off Site Existing plus project conditions are represented by the near -term future traffic volumes after completion of the project. Traffic from approved projects in the area would be included in these volumes, but no approved projects have been identified that would affect traffic conditions at the study intersection. Project Trip Generation. It is presumed that the addition of the car wash will attract additional traffic to the site. There is no available source of reference for estimating the magnitude of additional traffic that would be generated by this added use. The usual source for trip generation information is the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) manual called Trip Generation, sixth edition. That source does not contain an estimated rate that is applicable to the development use proposed (the use being the addition of an automated car wash to an existing service station and convenience market). Hexagon used the following approach. Driveway counts were conducted to determine the peak hours for traffic entering and exiting the site. From this effort, Hexagon was able to derive trip generation rates (the surveyed rates) based on data obtained specifically for this site. Second, Hexagon applied to these rates a multiplicative factor to estimate the additional trips that would be generated by the car wash. It has been estimated by the service station management that 80 percent of the users of the car wash will have already arrived at the site for the purpose of obtaining gasoline. None of these vehicles would constitute new traffic on the road, but the other 20 percent would. Therefore, the volume of project trips was estimated by multiplying the existing site demand by 0.25; that is, a 25- percent increase (20/80 = 0.25). Finally, the seasonal adjustment factor was applied in order to produce the total trip generation. The data are included in Attachment A. The trip generation totals for the proposed project are shown in Table 1. As the table shows, it is estimated that the project would generate 12 new mid -day peak -hour trips (6 inbound and 6 outbound) and 23 new PM peak -hour trips (12 inbound and 11 outbound). For comparative purposes, the TTE published trip generation rates and the City of San Jose recommended trip generation rates are included in the table. The rates show the surveyed values to be 26 percent lower than TTE and 29 percent lower than the City of San Jose. This could well be expected, considering that the project site is located in an area that is on average more rural in nature than the typical suburban setting surveyed for TTE and certainly is more rural than any community within San Jose. Project Trip Distribution. The trip distribution pertains to the directions to and from which the project trips access the site. The estimated trip distribution is as follows: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (north) 10 percent Saratoga Avenue (east) 20 percent Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (south) 30 percent Big Basin Way (west) 40 percent Union 76 Service Station Proposed Car Wash Addition Project Trip Assignment. The project trips were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution specified above. The project mid -day and PM peak -hour trip assignments are shown on Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. Level of Service. The estimated project trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to produce existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project mid -day and PM peak -hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively. The analysis showed that under existing plus project conditions the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during each of the mid -day and PM peak hours. The results are summarized in Table 2. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Attachment B. On -Site Access and Circulation Analysis Site Access An evaluation of site access consists of evaluating the flow of vehicles into and out of the site driveways. Flow at the driveways can be obstructed by either an inordinately high volume of traffic or by the presence of too many conflicting vehicle movements. The volumes shown on Figures 6 and 7 indicate only a moderate volume of traffic at the driveways. As for conflicting movements, only the left turns into and out of the site would pose any potential conflict. The two driveways on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road do not permit left turns, so no conflicts would be present at these locations. The two driveways on Big Basin Way do permit left turns in and out, but the driveways are not known to function unsatisfactorily under existing conditions. The project is projected to add left -turn traffic only to the one western-most driveway, and then it would only add two left -turn trips during the mid -day peak hour and five left -turn trips during the PM peak hour. These are not considered to be significant enough to cause a change from existing conditions. On -Site Circulation The feasibility of locating a car wash on site has been evaluated based on whether a functional layout can be achieved that does not adversely impact vehicular flow within the site or along easements adjacent to the site. The particulars of the site impose geometric constraints on the layout of the car wash and the vehicle stacking area leading to it. Based on input provided by the property owner and by city staff, the layout for the car wash has evolved in accordance with various constraints that have been uncovered along the way. Hexagon has devised a proposed site layout (in conceptual form only) that would (1) provide a functional car wash operation, (2) conform to traffic engineering design standards, and (3) not encroach on the adjacent easements. A conceptual diagram of the proposed layout is shown on Figure 8. Design Conformance. The conceptual design of the car wash is shown in more detail on Figure 9. The principal constraint is the 10 -foot clearance between the easement and the existing building structure. Note that the measurement of 10 feet was obtained directly off a previous site plan and is assumed to be correct. The adequacy of the proposed layout is wholly dependent on the correctness of this assumption (that the clearance is at least 10 feet). A functional layout would include a travel way of at least nine feet. The need to keep stacked vehicles off of the adjacent easement would entail installing a curb seven inches wide and six inches high. The nine -foot travel way and the two six -inch traffic dividers (curbs) would fit within the available 10 feet. Another important design feature is the radius of the approach lane curve (the site constraints necessitate a curve). Hexagon has estimated that a curve with 26 -foot outer radius and 17 -foot inner radius could be accommodated on the car wash travel way. Both the travel way width of nine feet and the specified turning Union 76 Service Station Proposed Car Wash Addition radii conform to design standards set forth by the standard industry reference, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Data on design standards and design vehicle dimensions are included in Attachment C. Lastly, note that the proposed layout would allow a minimum 20 -foot driveway /aisle width between the median curb along the southerly easement and the sidewalk along the existing building. The 20 -foot width would accommodate two lanes of opposing traffic on the adjacent property (though there would be no room for parking). Operations. The aforementioned traffic divider (curb) will minimize potential conflicts between car wash traffic and traffic in either of the adjacent easements and would thus provide for improved safety on site. Figure 10 shows the locations of greatest potential conflict between vehicular movements on the project site and the adjacent easements. A word on sight distance is in order. The safety afforded drivers at intersecting travel ways is dependent primarily on the sight distance available to the drivers and the speeds at which the vehicles are traveling. These two factors principally determine the time that drivers have to react. Take two locations on site that could pose potential safety hazards as a result of adding the car wash. As shown on Figure 10, the car exiting the car wash could conflict with a vehicle in either direction. A vehicle coming from the left of the driver and approaching from the blind side would be slowing to about 5 miles per hour while rounding the corner formed by the median. According to AASHTO, the minimum sight distance for safe operation would be 20 feet (refer to Attachment Q. The figure shows that the driver of the exiting vehicle would have about 20 feet to see the approaching vehicle. To that same driver's right there would need to be 85 feet sight distance for the driver to see and react to an approaching vehicle , traveling at 16 miles per hour (note that 16 mph is a reasonable upper limit for speeds on site). The figure shows that the driver of the exiting vehicle would have at least 85 feet sight distance in that direction. The same reasoning applies to the driver of the car approaching the southerly easement immediately next to the entrance to the car wash. In the worst case, where a vehicle in the car wash approach queue is obstructing part of the view, the driver of the car approaching the easement would have about 85 feet sight distance to see and react to a vehicle approaching from the right at 16 miles per hour. It is assumed here that no landscaping or on -site signage would be installed that could reduce sight distances beyond what has been described and shown on Figure 10. Safety. The degree of safety on site will be optimized with the car wash conceptual design shown on Figure 9. The use of curb and raised median, as shown, will serve to channelize car wash traffic in the direction shown (clockwise) and will serve to segregate car wash traffic from other on -site traffic and traffic on the adjacent easements. The median flares at the car wash entrance and exit will help to direct conflicting traffic to a directionality more perpendicular to the direction of car wash traffic and thus improve sight distance and visibility for car wash patrons as they enter and exit the car wash. The conceptual design shown should provide adequate sight distances on site under normal driving conditions at the speeds described above. It is not advised that any fences or barriers be installed as part of the car wash. Such devices could be installed but would be subject to further review at the time that a construction plan is submitted. A sign would likely be provided at the entrance to direct on -site traffic to the car wash and a stop sign or slow sign should be provided at the exit where the median curbs along the exit driveway terminate. The driveways into and out of the car wash should have arrows painted on the ground in a fashion similar to that shown on the diagram (Figure 10) in order to make clear the direction of traffic flow. Any landscaping that is provided should not be allowed to extend above a height of approximately two feet and signs should not be located so as to obstruct driver sight distance at or near locations of vehicle conflicts (particularly the entrance and exit to the car wash). Given these design features, the car wash can be expected to provide no undue traffic safety hazard. Final determination of this fact awaits review of the final design /construction plan for the car wash that is submitted for approval to the City. Union 76 Service Station Proposed Car Wash Addition 4 Queing. On the subject of vehicle queues at the approach to the car wash, the following observations may be made. Hexagon has been advised that the car wash will take three minutes to clean the car from start to finish. Hexagon estimates that about 30 seconds will be required to dispense one car and take in another. The total processing time would then be three and one -half minutes per vehicle. The proposed layout would accommodate at least four vehicles at once — one in the car wash and three in the approach queue. The presence of these four vehicles all at once would neither encroach on the adjacent easement nor obstruct vehicular flow elsewhere on the site. In order for on -site traffic flow to be affected in a clearly adverse way there would need to be six or more vehicles in the queue. The sixth vehicle in the queue would need to be prepared to wait more than 20 minutes before exiting the car wash; the seventh vehicle — 25 minutes; and so on. Generally, a car wash patron would not choose to be the sixth vehicle in the queue when that patron could, with their valid car -wash entry code, return for a car wash at a later time. There is therefore a reasonable expectation that a storage reservoir accommodating four to five large vehicles at once is a satisfactory design. Conclusions • The project would not create any significant adverse impact on traffic conditions off site. • The project would not impact traffic at the site driveways. • The project could be implemented without encroaching on the adjacent easement. • The car wash conceptual design shown and described in this report can be expected to provide no undue traffic safety hazard. Final determination of this fact awaits review of the final design/construction plan for the car wash. Union 76 Service Station Proposed Car Wash Addition c s;, I i .. �. : .•' Y'T . -�Z`, . .. • r :-- - ?� .. -�..+- :. _ o- 'v - f ST;,� "fi'r+ .,ter z�'�. -`,.• ^!?r'7 `•"G°- r7RT�T %� -� ^-�}jIF's--r-'•.; -�r.c'-rrr4-?rT -t l "rI�xY J wrr,' — sm \ sfr 7Y �; tP\. \11% F 9� '� / / /� ♦c. Yov,nc teen OcwE %)lO /41ti''�� ~' •P I i .Y I 11` f. SITE ANAYLSIS A5'f55CR5 PARCEL NTft;Z- 505- 24-05. - -•� ACVRE55: 14545 BIB VA51N YNr ' SARATO$A..A - OAER. RIC•: RATRA ' E • IS:IN5'15E. 5 -5M Zat V15TRICI, CH -I (C.MMERC I•LMISi0RIC1 _'r1ZE OF LJT. 'bbbq 50 FT 0bL AO. SIZE CIF 51 RLr I1/PP, �Gi 1 i1 S 40. FT TENANT M- R?lENENIS ' NC K' , ",, a Ali 4i hl \ \ (1 _eel T.— Pbbb4 $a. FT /Ri.O! WVFRvIM SITE CZ* ER•&E 1 f, '�/ �. ♦bYet.r II +LL ieu14 -•1t -uW` c'IC F.c _vt cr .,Te \4 Ptl , TO . >'JU O.tlew 1H'.1'[CTIau \ 1 1'.iL :Iryl \ i 1'IE P-G! :C LL5 fP M1QOPM S,IO\L rr: ,, \ ♦ YIcne., - ef- TI'1(AT•OU t-r ALL b'•1•,D1NL 'l p ¢f- r>- O:Itl. ♦Q! R4. To.- OP/ev,, v d \ \d.Y r Ye r•1.1. Ycovlrr> � c.., \�3 I I i • \o I - IT_o_ Ii . 1 i 11,i •[ ' TI I �I I I I iN "l'n'H aTt I I b �rlf.0 "C•IwKM •l'-O •i i'f .� 11 I- N I � 1 I I :E) DMVlWSY ��) D41V .W JY 4',q SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD STATE ROUTE 85 SITE PLAN Scale:l'- 10' -0' - j7=- ❑° t\ I��rs \_o 1d � s •5'd 4 u VICINITY MAP -� . � ' \w�v�o1M • a O O i U) Oo q U Q co v Q U o m Z F— 5 (7 .�l Q . W ILL aw fwl. O -+ Q _ 40' F O Z m r. m 10 It O O LL_ 'Q^ Q cr q ❑ r^ Q co v Q U o m Z (7 .�l aw fwl. jo, F .wfT 4 I A -1 r � ••A T �l �q7. : *i l."�.. '.fie "3•.,H'� <j. :'t "�wo `�..:a� .-r*K� _ �. .. ____ ______ —___ —. _ —__. I •'`: .. I I ... RALL-112M � { � • ors s� �a ::�.� ...... I 1 �'rfiE Orr.., tv ua.•r I r• we ccu:. —� w• own[. Iw.nr E... m tw..•.r r,rcr IS) .too NEW CARWASH ADDITION m ''snw w ,oc.no °.. .« r r i e _ I oc.r[ rondo• [ -� _ ____ __ Ktt St YIM /1 l0 4Mt Q / =0191 a[ouaro n OFFICE L - -- ' I I. rr e•• ` STORAGE SNACK SHOP ml A r�o[xirtcur�in ar'gw�icor•4 wrrdry � C. 11 /1•KQ)tn4 � \ ~ TOILET CLEAR MA741R RiNIVAy fOUY�"o gOCLAIM TANK CONTMUCTION TAI 4 ria• T. i � � � • G ^• ;EI �Ifi TS -! rc, Jn S,.fan r [l�il! Li.IR Jf k.l- r �taa� �, ..... I Mn.. • N 7 mrr ram[ i 1 c . .I 1 r._ a •.•.w, . w mw •..r .. r�s..` p� r. . .. . . .a •r ..•u s.e., .m oaa n a.« rs�.aa s rrn ..r.iw a.r[ r� n.r .. ..s•r TOILET -- - - -..0 - - -- -- -- - r..n ror n ..sro ro• Iw w.•n u.,D1 CI / 1 wrr lacer '1 ` C A S T I N P }LR -6.N_C H D R A jam! FLOOR PLAN Scale: 1 /4' -1'- 0' r4.L� 11TARNATE PRBCMT MNCII RAIN i `1 \ ANKROM MOISAN ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS 67105.w. Macadam, Suitt iw, Portland. Oregon 97219, 501/145•71ao. FAX 303/245.7710 it m N 4 MOM � m ku (� Ivy �R �� 1✓ Aaa VI IA 1 c.V nn 41111 F. -. a r�� ANKKOM MOISAN ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS .• .. 'I-" W—d— &d" — P-" tktg- w•4, P1445-71-, — w3/41 -171e SOUTH NORTH EAST MASTER PLAN FOR I.O.O.F. PROPERTY EXISTING I.O.O.F. HOME BUILDING ELEVATIONS ,0 4 6 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA