The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-06-1988 City Council Staff ReportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ' q �'- '� MEETING DATE: 6 -29 -88 (7 -6 -88) ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING AGENDA ITEM 4(�— CITY MGR, APPROVAL W SUBJECT: 1988 -89 Surface Treatment of Various City Streets Recommended Motion: Authorize to advertise for chip seal, cape seal and slurry seal on various City streets. Report Summary: This is annual Maintenance Program of streets and part of Street Pavement Management Program. The list of streets is attached. Fiscal Impacts: Engineering Department is working on cost estimate of the project. Attachments: 1. List of Streets. Mnf -inn and SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM NAME F FROM T T0. S SQ /YDS ALDER CT / /GLEN SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM NAME FROM TO SQ /YDS LARCHMONT AVE /NEEDHAM /EDINA 1767 • LARCHMONT AVE /EDINA /SCULLY 1151 MANOA CT /GLEN BRAE /END 750 MCCOY AVE /VILLANOVA 2.765 NANTUCKET C .' CT `PALERMO /PLYMOUTH /PLYMOUTH /END 539 CT /LA VISTA /END 62.1 PALO OAKS CT /SARP,TOGA /END 1566 PIERCE /PIERCE /END 1000 PIERCE RD D PLYMOUTHDR /WOODMONT /PIERCE CT 1050 PLYMOUTH-DR /BROCKTON /NEEDHAM /NEEDHAM /HOLYOKE. 1315 PLYMOUTH DR /HOLYOKE /NANTUCKET 1110, =_ 1105 PLYMOUTH DR SHADOW MOUNTAIN DR /NANTUCKET /MI'LJEVICH /DORCHESTER /LJEPAVA 1496 SHADOW MOUNTAIN DR /MILJEVICH /GLASGOW 1.266 1015. SHADYBROOK CT /WALBROOK /END 33,6 SOMERVILLE -DR VIA ARRIBA CT /WALDEN /TERRENCE' 1096 WALBR60K DR /VIA ARRIBA /BROOKGLEN /END /SUNNYBROOK 378 956 WALBROOK DR WALBROOK DR /SUNNYBROOK' /SHADYBROOK 1895 WOODMONT DR /SHADYBROOK /CHATEAU /CITY LIMIT /PIERCE 896 1720 1.06103 1980 CAPE SEAL PROGRAM NAME FROM TO SQ /YDS Y 'ALOHA AVE /FOREST HIL /KOMINA 2040 t AN!ZA DR / DEHAVILLAN /END 2085 3ARKSDALE CT /JUNIPER /END 6.3.9 )ROOK,LN /BROOKRIDGE /JOHNSON 1456 BROOKHAVEN DR ' /JOHNSON /BROOKRIDGE 1564 BROOKHAVEN DR /BROOKGLEN /BROOKRIDGE 1667 BROOKNOLL' CT /BROOK . /END 5.60 BROOKRIDGE DR. /BROOKHAVEN /BROOKNOLL 860 BROOKRID,GE DR /BROOKNOLL /BROOK . 1328 COLUMBINE CT DEHAVILLAND CT /SHUBERT /END /DEH�AV,LLLAN 627 ' DEHAVILLAND DR 'DEHAVILLAND /SHUBERT E.. /END /COX 1419. • DR DEHAVILLAND DR /SHUBERT E. /ANZA .575 3127 DEHAVILLAND DR /ANZA /DEHAVILLAN', / DEHAVILLAN /SHUBERT-W. , 3072 DEHAVnLAND DR /COX /SHUBERT W. 1,045 649 HARLEIG'H DR /PEREGO /END 371.8 HORSESHOE DR N. /SARATOGA -L /HORSESHOE-, 5647 HORSESHOE DR S. HORSESHOE DR S. / HORSESHOE /BELLA-VIST 1865 JUNIPER LN /BELLA VIST /SARATOGA -L 582 JUNIPER LN /LOVELAND /BARKSDALE / SARATOGA /LOVELAND 1050 LARCHMONT AVE /NORTHAMPTO /SOMERVILLE 1206 2519 LRRCHMONT AVE • LOVELAND CT /SCULLY /NORTHAMPTO 1613.• MONTPERE DR /JUNIPER /ALLENDALE /END /MONTPERE W .•837 2577 MONTPERE DR /MONTPERE W /QUITO 1895'' MONTPERE, WY /MONTPERE D /END 369 NEEDHAM'LN " /PLYMOUTH ., /LARCHMONT 1899 NEWHOUSE CT /SHUBERT /END 657 PARAMOUNT,DR PARAMOUNT /SARATOGA -S /STEWART 4257 DR. PARAMOUNT DR /STEWART /RICE /RIC "E 1056 PONTIA WY � /HARLEIGH /END /END 594 1793 QUITO RD R D AVE Q / SARATOGA H' /TRINITY 2585 QUITO RD /ALLENDALE. /ESPADA 1037 .,' QUITO RD /ESPADA /MONTPERE E 1037 QUITO RD /MCCOY /YORKTON /MARTHA /MCCOY 2 6.8 6 RICE CT SARATOGA AVE /PARAMOUNT /END 4702 1130 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA /VIA MONTE /SCOTLAND /SCOTLAND /CRESTBROOK 1104 4007 AVE. • SARATOGA AVE /S,EAGRAVES /JUNIPER 912 ' o SARATOGA AVE /JUNIPER /CRESTBROOK•' /SHADOW OAK /467 N /CRES 6752 "52 SHUBERT CT /SHUBERT , /END 14 654 } CAPE SEAL PROGRAM - -' NAME FROM TO SQ /YDS EST. COST SHUBERT SHUBERT DR DR /DEHAVILLAN /COLUMBINE 1437 SHUBERT {SHUBERT,DR DR /COLUMBINE /NEWHOUSE /NEWHOUSE 1063 '. ''S,TEWART CT /SHUBERT CT /SHUBERT CT /DEHAVILLAN 1034'• 986 r�TERRENCE AVE /PARAMOUNT /ELISA /END - .1130 TERRENCE AVE /SUMERVILLE /SUMERVILLE /ASCENSION 3083 VILLAGE DR- /COX /END 308.3 1774 98495 } S. r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / MEETING DATE: 6 -29 -88 (7 -6 -88) ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL/ SUBJECT- AWARD CONTRACT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FRUITVALE AVENUE TO RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Recommended Motion: Award Contract for Reconstruction of Fruitvale Avenue to RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Report Summary: The City received eight bids on June 28, 1988 for the above project. The lowest bid for this project was Raisch Construction Company located in Mt. View with total bid of $170,263.61. This project is part of the Street Management Program. Fiscal Impacts: $170,263.61 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1987 -1988 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Mnt- i nn anr3 Wnf-a - City. of. Saratoga .Sheet of C6mxnnnity_Devglopment Department, • - - PROJECT OAZE_= June 22_,1e8 8 - -- - j .. _ . . RECONSTRUCTION OF FRUITVALE,AVE. 's NA Blu. Smin RY` TIME`: • 2 ;i00 1 Description Remove existin 6" Asphal tity t Engineer's 1 Est: Amount 1ZA)SC44 CoNs- Amount O�GrRAD� it �7qV v�.A-T7"15 Amount , t CONS ount 6RAN/T6 it CONSr Amount Concrete & compact base 41,33 ..8 0.49 2 rock Install 5" asphalt con -:_ 93,952.0 S.F. 1.0 930-952.0 0.70 6 .40 6 .48 O.65 Crete in two lifts l-, " r a on .3 ,226 tons o )09,6694--n 26•a B3 S 6• 34.60 11.1 619.60 3 • � oz 909• 31.0 100 oo6•oa 4 5 existing walkway Install fabric mat Install A.R.. 4000 Binder " white bike strip P •n " white str e 56 10,439.- 869.0 2 960 tons S.Y. gal F. 40.-o o- 1. 1D o Z o• no z.14 SD 5 SD $Q. oa .O Z• O. ;G 4-8 ,Og ¢, 1 - ?-1 1 • 00 1 1 ¢ . oa 15- p -5. 0•88 2,800 -o T -o 5 ZLZ8 0• �6 7 ••43 4 1 •oa , O 1 o5 -fl o- O 5.0 5 Bglj, o 3,1 31.7D 4.34 .o 1 33Z :O 1 2 .80 0. 1. 1 . o 3 around islands Pa -int 8" white left turn 316 L.F. p, ,f-, 0 1.0 316-00 080 28 D•8 279,09 f•b 3c�.o Lane Ilow Crosswalk " 369 6 L.F. each a,Sb -D - 90 •oa 6b0 -� o• o 7- 16 •D ZO •dO 5 Zo0•o 034-0 0.65 12-00.0 169•a Z34-go- 1 1 4 .Op 0.60 Zao• 2.16.0 1 00.. Farker hite "C" Marker lue Marker ement marking 1OE 1 L.S. each S. •o S o !o 0 1-0-0-0 A34-g. 0-v 7 l o , oa 3 0 , 0-a 000• 4•D '632 •OD Z • 0P 00 - D 30,0, 466• 4.3Z 695• ZD 4.32 7 4.32- 300 - oe Z70•o 457-92- 6 Z • ! Z • 96 Z7D • 00 5.zo _ 530,-0 790• o 1 300• ' 30,0 oNS7 VNT a 0 b a.� Engineerls Est. - .. Description two i My valve & • - boxes rr • i .♦ I • �I •. iI • II i i�� broken Paint Detector LOOD 1 )=now* � -� oNS7 VNT a 0 b a.� - City of.SaratoQa -She at. of -Community Devgloprnent Devartment PROJECT OAT-Kt June 26•,_�95 8 ' .' -- - .: .. _ . . RECONSTRUCTION'OF FRUITVALE,AVE. B 1 0 S M AKn Y � T1M,:_ 2 z00 R .M_ - ngineer's Est -. SWBEtJY �' $p}� No RMA N )4OU4.E- 6r RADEWAy� Ni-v�VE18LFS Description 1 Remove existin 6" Asphal VD it Amount Amount it Amount t Amount It Amount Concrete & compact base rock 2 Install 5 "'asphalt con - -: 93 S. 0 93 9 2•o 30 .6Z 1.59. zsD•2. o,796 73 846.2-7 0.65 61. 64•'9O 9 -54 -5p .o9 Crete in two lifts I Install 115" overlay on 3. 226 tons o 109 66 33 -0 1496 .459• 2.0 135,4-9Z.0 35.5 h2 R /o -o 4S• existing walkway 4 Install fabric mat 5 Install A.R. 4000 Binder Paint " white bike strip Pain " white stripe 56 10 439. ° 869.0 2 960 tons S.Y. gal F. 40.-0 o - 1.1ti o• Z o. o0 2-1,7. SD 5 •90 SS• 0-0 50.o 0-50 •0 0. o z Soo -o M:2 5 •0 4$ o•8Z p -31 30330.6 50149 •7Z 714.59 91'7 . 60 9o•O o.49 549 -0 -b 46 , 5)1 5 -1/ p,. ,4[0 d•S 729.96 0, .7` 1 243•za .g 460 -$O aroynd islands 3 Paint 8" white left turn 316 L.F. p, Q,90 043C, z Z. 0.31 g7 • 9b v• Z�S.4- o•gg •2-7 . Lane- P,qin� Yellow wal n l "H" pavement 360' 6 L.F. each o Sb O •D - So •oa 600 -� o• o .b i Zt•�. co 1 o•rj0.O-V 0.41 Z:O 1 7. 60 2 , o0 p.6-3 Zz6. O 10949-00 396.00 32 p',O-D marker Install White "C" Marker Install Blue Marker 10E 1 _ 3 each -O S•o 1049 5.o-V o,on 30 a 4 -D 4.O -o ',4:Z4-. D G3Z• a 5• 0 5.60 5g,:3. aa 8 o .gyp 4-0 •0 4.0 4,P .o. 63LO /2.49 4•_ _ 4b�,4a 4, 55.0 E 165 : Pint pavement marking L. S. _ S. 1000 pop • as 25-0-01 Z 5?0.0 7S•O 5 Z$ . aD Z,Sb •o 2 Sb - 0 7�.b 7 Z6 .� ominunity Dev el o'Pment Denartnien ✓ XF- )NT I I M-10 - o•. I Description AIR ` 'aW!1 •• • i�ly• •- e• o a ��• •• • lid _ • lo• s.� a .� • �mm��m m • o• �� i♦ • r i r r• ..i A i.rr r "ra ..� it err , /rs r � � Paiat • o ®.- Detector Loops M WN ®moo ® v ✓ XF- )NT I I M-10 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 7 -6 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. SUBJECT: Grant Final Building Site Approval SD 87 -018, Ambric Knolls Road, Larry Hayes Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM V CITY MGR. APPROVAL Approve Resolution SD 87 -018, attached, approving Final Building Site Approval. Report Summary: 1. SD 87 -018 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 87 -018. 2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -018 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Hayes Apn # 503 -55 -024 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions .of 1 lot all as more particularly set forth-in File No. SD -87 -018 of-this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision., together with the provisions for its .design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,. reference to the Staff Report dated February, 10, 1988 being hereby made for further particulars, and _ WHEREAS, this •body has heretofor received and considered the (Categorical Exemption) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA,'and WHEREAS, none of'the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section'66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter-set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision., which map is dated the_ 10th day of October, 1987 and is marked Exhibit D in the hereinabover,eferred to file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of • said 'approval are as. more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.. -The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission.at a meeting thereof held on the 10th.day of February, 1988; at which a quorum was present, by.the 'following vote: AYES: Chair Harris, Commissioners Guch, Burger'; Kolstad, Clay, Siegfried & Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None by ATTE T• '1 an ning Comm issJir?n AD ISORY AGENCY Ch an, Planning Commission Ambric Knolls Rd. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT "A" I. ., Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of-this resolution or said resolution shall be void. II. Specific Conditions _ Engineering Division 1. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at•the•time of- obtaining Final.-Approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required fees. I. Submit "Irrevocab.le Offer of. Dedication" -to provide easements, as required. 4. Construct standard driveway approach. 5. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required • at- 'driveway -and access road intersections. 6. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 7. Obtain an encroachment permit from Engineering Department for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. III. Specific Conditions = Saratoga Fire District 1. Fire. Hydrants: Developer shall install one fire hydrant that meets the fire districts specifications. Hydrant shall be installed and.accepted prior to Final Map Approval. 2. All fire hydrants shall be located within five hundred feet from the residence and deliver no less than one thousand gallons per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours, (City of Saratoga Code 14- 30:040 (c)) IV. Specific Conditions _ Santa Clara Valley Water District 1. In accordance. with District Ordinance 83 -1•, the owner should .show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s), if any, should be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards.- Any well(s) on -site shall be sealed in- accordance with District standards unless they In this are to be used for the proposed development. 7 -018; 21130 Ambric Knolls Rd. case, any well(s) to be used shall be used only after proper testing and inspection by the-District. Applicant shall provide written confirmation regarding the existence of any wells on -site and their proposed disposition. V. Specific Conditions - Building Inspection'Department 1. Prior to'the issuance of building permits, the applicant, shall .enter into an agreement indemnifying and holding the City-, its officials, officers, boards, commissions,' employees, agents and professional consultants, free of and harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, . damages, sorts or liabilities claimed by reason-of any actual or potential geologic hazard and further stating that she /he is voluntarily and knowingly assuming risk thereof.' .VI.. Specific Conditions _ Planning Department 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit C, incorporated by reference. 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. --------------------------------------------- Signature of Applicant. Date r " AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMIS.SIQN SD -87 -018, DR -87 -13'9 HAVES, 21130 Ambric Knolls Rd. tent ative bldg. s e and design .review �! ncxm 21oof f!7), 14 144" c�'i a 0 11" 4- Kb46 yl�Z ;(Z7 ,4646 1 8 4: 50V 21o2s` (19) 14448 W K6�o 2 t�1 ��6) „ So7-S1'-Z8 •• 14.450 K65s Ira i 141.50 1 144.5E 803.-(0$ O IKts4 14654 t ,44's.c !4G�A 146s4. V V, 11656 14&S70 144.SS 14660 144.51-1 1K60 '144Vi' �S67p ' C'S •2-1024U 144. 60 14G6eluj X44.62 144.44 14662 . NG4 I 14666 _ 1 i461Z • !4661 1 46646 rc 114668 _ 14 f.66 IK64 14667 14f.(.6� I_ W ! . i 46 4. 8 14661 144.68 — 14666 1 14 gol-55•.23 — — — -- .�y 14bbS 1 '14670. 14671 1467Z0� 14D7Z. �. "144.70 - • / 1 4 4.:72 14471 i4±7 V j44.74. 1 } 6 74 1" 5 14674 �. 1467G 1 410.76 141.77` V7 V • t 14 14G78 .14679 46 so 14680 14.67 • - S 14694 'O So] -i.S -�,Z: 14(6 .87- 14b o 14 at • 50s /4.633. 1 1,44. 64 .146(14 . I" S0) -54617 r, 146 96 14681 14686 -� 0 7-12 q5 141. a8 M.L6g 14'c6s 144a8 503-60 v 14.290 14661 14410 _ 144" N O 14692 3Jal2�:t . 14 (0(05 1464.6 ., sO7•SS 14614• N� y -Fg (� I f.o� -#5'2t 141o16 c • •So-s-48 -26 '� 607•51;- 19 ' I ' 14700 \ Sot - sr- Zo' (� C n r , c /• ;t '20400 oz_ g t6 511' 517 -7- 21000 SOW 05:'�� HAKONE .Io42O .':GARDEN:S. d r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 6 -29 -R8 (7 -6 -88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL#/IK' ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval, SD 88 -007, Douglas Ralston, Sunset Drive Recommended Motion: Approve Resolution SD 88- 007 -02 attached, approving Final Building Site Approval. Report Summary: 1. SD 88 -007 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 88- 007 -02. 2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. mr i- i n" n"A NY_+ -- . RESOLUTION NO, SD -87 -006 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Dr. & Mrs. Ralston - 19905 Sunset Drive WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un der the Subdivision Ordinance 'of the City of Saratoga;'for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of-' i all as more particularly set forth in File No', SD -e7 -ooh o thiss� City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby-finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im-• -,provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General'Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives,.policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated being hereby made for further ar August 12, 1987 . particulars, and • WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received.and considered the (Categorical Exemption) (EzW /4ZVeyAt&Vd this project in accord with the currently applicable prepared for Of CEQA, and provisions WHEREAS,-none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said•subdivision, and tentative e t accord with conditions as hereinafterpseteforthuld be granted in Nbcv, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision,-which map is dated the ::8th day of April 19 87 and is marked Exhibit C the hereinabovereferred of file., be and the same is ere y con' ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit C in by•reference. and incorporated here- ..The above -and foregoing resolution was duly by the, Planning Commission at a meeting thereof p fheld- onnthedopted 12th day of August 19 87 was present, by tFTe following vote; at Which a quorum AYES: ' Chair Harris, Commissioners Burger, Tucker, Clay. NOES: None ISORY.A Cy , ABSENT:Guch, Siegfried By: Cha rman, anni.ng ommission ATTEST: i Se r Lary, Planning Co:tanission u SO -87 -006 19905 Sunset Dr. EXHIBIT C I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING A. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).' B. , Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to prvide for a 30 ft. half street on Hume Dr. and 20 ft. half - street on Sunset Dr. C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easement, as required. D. Improve Hume Drive to City standards, including the following: 1. Designed structural section 18 ft, between centerline and flowline. 2. P.C. eonc,rete curb and gutter N -24). 3. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities (D.I.A.) E. Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff•to street„ storm sewer or watercourse. F. Construct driveway approaches 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. G. Construct valley gutter across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by•the City Engineer. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as'requlred at driveways and access road intersections. I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Obtain encroachment permit from the.- he Engineering Dept. for driveway approaches or pipe .cros-sings of City street. K. Engineered improvement plans required for: 1. St.reet•improvements L. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. -r SO -87-006; 19905 Sunset Dr. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final ' approval. N. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement for the required improvements marked "D.I.A." 0. Post bond to guarantee completion of. the required .improvements. ' P. Construct Sunset Drive 18 ft wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6 aggregate base for the entire frontage. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - BUILDING INSPECTION A: Prior to issuance of.building permits, submit to Building Dept, detailed on -s-ite improvement plans showing: 1. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 2. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 3. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.' 4. Erosion control measures. S. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT•NO 4 A. Sewer service is available through the extended 6 -inch sewer in Hume -Dr. A 4 -inch building sewer will have to be installed to serve the residence. Contact the district about the fees due. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS_ - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Existing septic tanks) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards. Contact the district Sanitarian f.or final inspection upon completion. C. Domestic water shall be•supplied by San Jose Water Works. S SO -87-006; 19905 Sunset Dr. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final ' approval. N. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement for the required improvements marked "D.I.A." 0. Post bond to guarantee completion of. the required .improvements. ' P. Construct Sunset Drive 18 ft wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6 aggregate base for the entire frontage. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - BUILDING INSPECTION A: Prior to issuance of.building permits, submit to Building Dept, detailed on -s-ite improvement plans showing: 1. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 2. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 3. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.' 4. Erosion control measures. S. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT•NO 4 A. Sewer service is available through the extended 6 -inch sewer in Hume -Dr. A 4 -inch building sewer will have to be installed to serve the residence. Contact the district about the fees due. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS_ - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Existing septic tanks) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards. Contact the district Sanitarian f.or final inspection upon completion. C. Domestic water shall be•supplied by San Jose Water Works. S SD -87 -006; 19905 Sunset Dr. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - 'SAN'fA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. In accordance with District Ordinance BS -1, the owner should show any existing wells) on the plans. The wells) should ( be properly registered with the District and either maintained• or abandoned in accordance with District standards. Improperly constructed or abandoned wells can be a hazard and may be a source of groundwater contamination. We request that wells be sealed in accordance. with District standards unless they are to be used for the proposed development. In this case, they should only be used,after proper testing and inspection. We request written confirmation from the developer or his engineer regarding the existence of any wells and their proposed disposition.. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. No ordinance size. tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. B. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the pasage Of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. The foregoing conditions are hereby.accepted. Signature of Applicant Date Y g . 11 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SD -87 -006, DR -87 -028 RALSTON 19905 SUNSET DR. NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME 16,91 X17- 2 >•vl Sr)•27•)1 Moo m r �1 iTZx' G71.• -sl% ,a O 517.1x- � nP Ip]I'i 110.01.01 .n•,o >ow� 50.01- . 1 •ol -• Oo e1o•o(- � � aii•/t•u �t 7•• � "j1 of 17) (,) oa I40�1 O 510•.1 - 0 17°,1 (0 ;o1zs ( m >+]•ix -1s I>oez Iron7, o ISM 13 '17 I4o B! i4oca I4o,e S ♦t11 71E wit -so • ,aa• pl 20130 ~ f11•ib 716.01 .11 DIO •or• n •01- f10 1009 -d- 410 m1- 01ov1' oe 7D 717.72• l0 10 OB Or 116)] m PARK DR „) a»•!rn �RD.- 4011 O (11) 01 l'P 11 far • 717•ce -16 _W 1.71 16137 14070 14090 !4070 _ 510.01 -t7 1110 (aln 4 917-u' 910 -01• z ° 71o• el- 710.01. 0ie'OI- O (la Gc1 IA110 • 15199 (.r 1� 910.01 -21' 7/0.0 ► -01 D17-zY•7. 41Y-OI -17 170 yo alry -o. -1p 7` , D 161'77 510 01-Z6 e' 717•tt -u .77 la 140 1.612 /.• /nl w (W (N (ao) (z>) 4m -o) -09 • Y7•tc •'77. ?177 io.IC1 19121 IoS1- 710 -01- :910.01.17 19B77 11076 11obf 4i• 1 }111 92-17 44 47 11 - e7 b10-'i • •ol 0'97 - 910 -0 /-t• ' O)•1! 910. za Iy1oo R K DR, a0 -o) -oa 1 1l � 9990 410 •ol'fY 'n1 1852 YID•OI•X 1alYi 41 a-e1- 15too 1599 O IO.OS. 7 15172' /17.2i•N i 5181 410.01.16 e•01•YO olo-OI•Y1 >) �lo•o) -o(. .1 9.1 b'a CN 410. 62.12 (71 ..Qz plo`Oa -o0 147• 15267 Ig180 910.01 117•:1 -11 w7-it-11 15[11 t,10-01 -1, 0) (1) Ow UJ [zi •� 1 19.921 17891 19601 1983'1 Ia0 910 -0l 2 -0.1 ' 1 -r .,1nT 1� ai0. 01 •f] Wo•OI -7V 010.01-17 410.01.74 - 1935 0 1[77 'tz•70 1 � NO.01• n e10 -sx•ol R IN WY.' J �/ 1 95 71 7n -u -n7 (It) la G Ig110 ao'o) -09 1s311 U) IY110 INBBo 19291 Elo- as -.1. 410'02 -Of✓ 41 --6 --7 '173 152g5(<1 15237(1) 510 - 72-0'2 � , 15320 -- 410 -. •iL ' 07 O 16310 IB)41 7n- tx -71. � [� 71GZ 21.03 15 3,0 151 .r 1-74 6 a9 0 ( 1900 I $ ' 51p -O) -01 171oo 10.11 06 152(/3 .. 410 -ox -O 010•°[•0;) 510 -62-07 417.72 .15 (`) LARK W Y. ♦O•j1 510 - .tit -o1 15370 /4 b10, 159°0 . \Y 010•o2 -10 '15)71 171 I i Olo- a2 -oi. 1 _ 1 • `` 510 -.'f2 00 410.0, -09 ylo 17 01 ., 141175 (u 017.29 -7z ,1rY00 d 1$400 14417 c �lo•c C) x•ly IS9/6 ' I5tyo 11730 • 7n -xz -8 7 J S10�0( -17 14127 7i e•o[-12 ►10.0{ -06 slo -G0 -04 610.07-18 .. [y) U (11 14 Y.)e 15161 Q 517•ZZ•90 w7•ez•ud W 4n•xz•7r -06.19 1 „ 810.07 -2 197.79, y1 o•O,•OT b10702' 178 • L6 9903 710. .K 1 • 4 •02• GLEN UNF-0111 16,91 X17- 2 >•vl Sr)•27•)1 Moo m r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 6 -29 -88 (7 -6 -88) ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Dept. SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval - SD 88 -003 Fruitvale Avenue, Pedro Luque Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM � L. CITY MGR. APPROVAL Approve Resolution SD 88- 003 -02, attached, approving Final Building Site Approval. Report Summary: 1. SD 88 -003 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 88- 003 -02. 2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Mnt i nn and Vnf-c • RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -003 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF APN# 397 -17 -011, LUQUE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of. California and under the Subdivision Ordi�napce•of the City of Saratoga, for tentative Building site approval of of one lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -003 of this City, and WHEREAS, . this Advisory -Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision; together with the provisions for its design and' improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all *pecific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan., reference to the Staff Report dated April 27, 1988 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS; this body has heretofor received and considered the Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in -accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g). of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth... NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED hereinafter described subdivision, which January,' 1988 and is marked Exhibit C be and the same is hereby conditionally approval are as more particularly s, incorporated herein by reference. that the tentative map for the map is dated the .22nd day of in the hereinabove referred file, approved. The conditions of said at forth on Exhibit- A and The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof. held on the 27th day of April, 1988, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: HARRIS, GUCH, SIEGFRIED, BURGER NOES.; NONE ABSENT:. TUCKER, KOLSTAD ATTEST: Chairman, Plannin Commission Sec.retary,.Planning Commission A: RPSTM 1 1�✓ SD -88 -003, 14601 Fruitvale Ave. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A '.1. The applicant shall sign an Agreement to these conditions within 30 P days of the passage.of this resolution or said resolution shall.be 1 void. SPECIFIC- CONDITION - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2. Pay -storm drainage fee in' effect at the time of obtaining final building site approval 3. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay °required fees. 4.,. Submit "Irrevocable. Offer of Dedication" to- provide for 3.0 ft. half street (,from original centerline) on Fruitvale Avenue. 5. Submit "Irrevocable•Of €er of Dedication" to provide easement(s) as required. 6. Construct storm drainage system, as directed by the 'City Engineer, as needed to convey storm run -off to street; storm sewer or watercourse. 7. Provide. adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway. 8. Watercourses,' if any, must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 9. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the.following: ' a. Improve Fruitvale Avenue to City standards including the following: 1. designed structural section 20 ft. between original centerline and flowline' 2. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (R -36) 3. pedestrian walkway 4. underground.existing overhead utilities b. Construct standard driveway approach. c.. Submit engineered improvement plans,fo.r required street improvements. d. Pay plan check fee and inspection fees as.determined from Improvement Plans. 4 SD -88 -003, 14601 Fruitvale Avenue e. Post bond to guarantee improvements. SPECIFIC CONDITION _ SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH ' .10. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-— PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11. Tree removal prohibited unless in accordance with City Code. 12. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and 13. other governmental entities must be next. - -. Prior to final building site approval, the applicant shall remove the existing structure located in the southeast corner of the lot or obtain the proper Building and Planning Departments permits. The - foregoing conditions-are hereby accpepted Signatur of.A plican Da e A � I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SD-88-003 LUQUE 14601 Fruitvale Ave. Tent.. Bldg. Site 1106(b 17 .3 144,55 Z 14452 77-17-1.3 '17-17 - 5z '—se. 317-17-�7- .14446 1,752. J w LD '317-06-77 co 3,7-17 -41 !1700 71712s. lot ;9550 . (3) JT? 6.44. 7 4448 7- 1-1 s a 0 BLACK 317-1-7-57 16' z ,I ------------------- L t (a) 6 317-16.69 (4) C3) 14494 2f 7- 1 11700 )t. -0 0 i4so 1 4417 1 44% 377 -/2.54 14 4 f.2 14450 317-17-4/. ]97 317- 16 - 0 P, 397-17- 5m & 5 7.4 r) Ln 0 14494 010 ;4S4S 3174 7-oe, 197511 397 -U. -g2 197Q7 196.25 19573 1952) (2 397-16 6.9 OUGLASS LN. �o Cd (7) 19644 11431 19742 14401 14400 317 -I1 -50 19700 317-17-61 5'17-17-51 NBo S• 377-17-05 117]7 !9695 /7653 317-17-48 377-17-17 14557 t z 317*17-31 '317 -17.31 -"7-17-10 777-/7•Z9 -"7-1a 7� 377-17-27 7 ell (a) 17 .3 144,55 Z 14452 77-17-1.3 '17-17 - 5z '—se. 317-17-�7- .14446 J ; 608 LD 3,7-17 -41 !1700 71712s. lot ;9550 . (3) JT? 6.44. 7 4448 14475 BLACK 317-1-7-57 16' z ,I ------------------- L „7.17 -07 (4) C3) 14494 2f 7- 1 i4so 1 4417 1 44% 377 -/2.54 14 4 f.2 14450 317-17-4/. ]97 -/7.55 397-17- 5m & 5 7.4 r) I 14494 ;4S4S 3174 7-oe, �o Cd 21 - to -BS NBo S• 19771 117]7 !9695 /7653 1961, ,4534 14557 t 311-17-33 317*17-31 '317 -17.31 -"7-17-10 777-/7•Z9 -"7-1a 7� 377-17-27 —. ?.. 2 VERSAILLES Y. r 11200 19757. r? (..6o 1415 '51 /4560. • "7-0- 43 ?17,7-W 317-17-35 .31 7-17-11 , 3 ?7- 7-2G m r 14400 C 641) 517-t7-4t m • 317-/7.37 (46) rn :957! 195)1 14625 1171 S L -7 L 1 1 {L 71 ao 14 1.80 r FARWELL AVE. -)i . . I ; 608 .:470o 4 6 !1700 71712s. lot ;9550 ;4660 JT? 6.44. 7 16' z ,I ------------------- L 2f 7- 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. _ 0 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: T/ 6 /gg CITY MGR. APPROVAL . ORIGINATING DEPT ENGINEERING' SUBJECT: City Property at Cox Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road P.G. & E. and Pacific Bell Easement Recommended Motion: Authorize execution of the easement to P.G. &E. and Pacific Bell across the northwest corner of this parcel. Report Summar Developer who is purchasing 'this property from City wishes to have utilities relocated on both this parcel and their adjoining parcel at the same.time for efficiency. To do so requires the relocation of the pole at the corner which in turn places the facilities over the City property. The utility companies have presented the attached easement to accommodate their facilities. Inasmuch as the power lines are 60 :,KV they will continue-as overhead facilities. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Easement. Motion and Vote: V 4 "�I II AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Land Department De Anza Division 10900 N. Blaney Cupertino, CA 95014 Location: City /Uninc Recording Fee Documentary Transfer Tax 5 0 Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or 0 Computed on Full Value Less Liens & Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale 0 Consideration or Value Less Than $100. 0 Signature of declarant or agent determining tax FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY EASEMENT CITY OF SARATOGA, a public body of the State of California, first party, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California" corporation, and PACIFIC BELL, a California corporation, second party, the right from time to time to construct, reconstruct, install, inspect, maintain, replace, remove and use facilities of the type hereinafter specified, together with a right of way therefore, within a strip or parcel of land or along a route as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands situate in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: APN 393 -01 -001 The parcel of land conveyed by Mijo R. Miljevich and Anna Miljevich to City of Saratoga by deed dated March 16, 1970 and recorded in Book 8864 of Official Records at page 460, Santa Clara County Records. Said facilities shall consist of: Such overhanging wires, cables, crossarms, fixtures, and appurtenances, as second party deems necessary located within the strip of land described as follows: A strip of land of the uniform width of 10 feet extending from the easterly boundary line of the state highway commonly known as Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road northeasterly to the southerly boundary line of the city street known as Cox Avenue and lying contiguous to and southeasterly of the line described as follows: n G� uG Commencing at the northerly terminus of a course in said easterly boundary line of said Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, which course as shown upon the Record of Survey Map filed for record in Book 178 of Map at page 8, Santa Clara County Records, has a bearing of N 00 45' 36" E and a length of 128.18 feet, being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of said line, and running 1) North 460 38' East approximately 29 feet to a point in said southerly boundary line of said Cox Avenue. First party shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill or operate any well within said strip of land. Second party shall also have the right from time to time to trim and clear away or otherwise control any trees or brush along said overhanding facilities whenever considered necessary for the complete enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF first party has executed these presents this day of , 19 Executed in the presence of: Witness CITY OF SARATOGA Mission Trail Region, DeAnza Division, S.D. 41;E36813, G.M. 4679072, APM 3.93 -1, Map H -13, Drwg. DAL -74, NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec. 36, T.7S., R.2W., M.D.B. &M., (JKG 625- 2219) FOR NOTARY'S USE ONLY h;! /4 DC' N.,E 114- - , z 6 r. 7 S . o W ' �r000s ed io' w1dG 3 41) qo 0 O � vy � � z, c,fy o{ cSUrOfO�l4 'n �) '3 °o 884 D.Q. 460 7201 0.X.a67 o 0 LEGEND LANDS D RJW N TIE ❑ 0 s I -� 0 ct q T .Rl c r JAS /T 57 9 ,' ` / L 1110r97onG 11U &e 9 6t' ofhers J987 1434 10 8058 —It 1,OT Z M ;M FJ f-7 • H / 3 N C1 7-Y OF'2 H KDSU. 3'AR r( 7'o G �J R Z r,4 I C G �N r",E R Nll -iOng 7`RA'l� DATE AL PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 0/2eJ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 0 99 SHUT No. SHE _ REV. _ z 62 -1827 Rev. 7/85 1 MICROFILM I I ` H ` SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 7 -6 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: "Grant Construction Acceptance ", Tract 7763 Dividend Development, Prospect Road Recommended Motion: "Grant Construction Acceptance" and Release Cash Bond. Report Summary: AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL The work has been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) Year Maintenance Period. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. M-4- 4 -- � - A 117..4-- . W. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 _nVULL,allV1S®1SVAli V D1L1'1SV11. TO': City Manager DATE: FROM: Director of Public 'Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for TRACT :7763 r Name & Location DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT ___________________________ Prospect Road,- Saratoga Public Improvements required for TRACT 7763 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will, begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Dividend Development Address: 3600 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite 340 Santa Clara„ Ca. 95051 2. Improvement Security: Type`: Assignment Certificate (as cash bond).& Security Bond. Amount: $40,000.00 & $816,340..00 Issuing Company: Great Pacific Savings & Loan Association Address: 3590 Homestead Road Santa Clara, Ca. i xx1Am x0r •Certificate No.: 60000 7685 3. Special Remarks: Release Assignment Certificate for CAsh' Bond.. RSS /ds111 RObO t 5. Shook E i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 7 -6 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: "Final Acceptance" of SDR -1620 HWang, Bainter Avenue AGENDA ITEM 411 CITY MGR. APPROVAL, Recommended Motion: "Grant Final Acceptance" and Release Bond for SDR -1620. Report Summary: The private improvements for SDR -1620 has been satisfactorily completed, therefore, release Bond (Assignment Certificate). Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: ...•F. - 13777 FRUiTVALE AVENUE SARAT �•' --- -+ 008) 867 -3,138 OGA, CALIFORNIA C��L'�FOR fl5070 MEMORANDUM I• TO: City Manager DATE, 7-1-88 FROM:. Citx •Engineer SUBJECT: Tract __ SDR 1620 (Final Acceptance) Location:- Bainter ,Avenue, Saratoga All improvements required'of . to in the SDR •i62o and agreed Bu ldia Site Approval Agreement dated 3 -23 -87 .have been satisfactorily completed.. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: George HWAng Address : 172'83 Ea$nn Tana Monte Sereno, Ca. 9.5030 2. Improvement Security: Type: Assignment Certificate • Amount: $23,.000.00 Issuing Co.: Bank of the West Address.-* T,os Gatos•, Ca Certificate No.: 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Robert Shook EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. DATE: July 6, 1988 DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -87 -032, UP -87 -019 - 14510 Big Basin Way, Appeal of Planning Commission decision denying variance and use permit applications to expand the restaurant's seating capacity by installing outdoor dining without providing additional parking spaces. Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Report Summary: On May 11, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously denied a use permit application to allow outdoor dining in conjunction with a restaurant use (Trattoria Restaurant). In addition, the appellant's variance request to expand the restaurant's seating capacity without providing the additional three parking spaces required by the City Code was also denied. The appellant requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Report to the City Council Appeal application Planning Commission minutes, 5/11/88 Report to the Planning Commission, 5/11/88 Correspondence Plans Motion and Vote 7/6: Appeal denied 3 -2 (Anderson, Peterson opposed). 8/3: Appeal to be reconsidered 4 -1 (Moyles opposed). 9/7: Appeal granted. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6/28/88 COUNCIL MEETING: 7/6/88 V -87 -032, UP -87 -019 - 1451.0 Big Basin Way, Appeal of Planning SUBJECT: Commission decision denying variance and use permit applications to expand the restaurant's seating capacity by installing out - door dining without providing additional parking spaces. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. Background /Analysis On 5/11/88, the Planning Commission considered and .unanimously denied variance and use permit applications to expand a restaurant's seating capacity by installing outdoor dining without providing the required number of additional parking spaces. Note: The use permit application is to allow outdoor dining in a C -C zone district, the variance application is to allow an expansion of the restaurant's seating capacity without providing the required three additional parking spaces. The-two applications are inter - related since the use permit application can't be approved if the variance application is denied. The Planning Commission was concerned with the adverse impacts the proposal would have on the existing parking situation in the Village, particularly since there aren't any additional parking spaces currently available in Parking District #4. In addition, the Planning Commission was concerned about the precedent setting nature of the request since they were being asked to approve an expansion to the restaurant's seating capacity without requiring the requisite number of additional parking spaces. The appellant, Michael del Monaco, has,stated that the outdoor dining area would only be available to lunch time patrons, which is the least busy time of the day. In addition, he suggested that he would be willing to limit the number of seats available inside the restaurant during the lunch hour,so that the total number of seats available, inside and outside, would remain constant. The Planning Commission considered the above plan but felt that enforcement of it would be difficult. In the end, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required variance and use permit findings. B. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision. Yu ek Hsia Pla ing Director YH /bc /dsc ;723; J� Date -Re.ccived :- • Hearing Date: MAY 2 31988 Fee : 4,100,60 CITY OFSARATOGA CITY USE Or CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE APPEAL-APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Michael bet Moanco Address • 19493 Burgundy Way, Saratoga; Ca. 95070 Telephone: (408) 867 -7490 Name of Applicant:. Trattoria Restaurant Project File No.: V -87 -032 UP -87 -019 Project Address: 14510 Big Basin Way, Saratoga - Project Descript. ion: Serving food outdoors for lunch Decision Being Appealed: Denial of request Grounds for the Appeal (.Letter may be attached): I would•like the Planning Commission to reconsider their decision not to allow the diming guest to be served lunch outside in the courtyard. The reasons that I would like you to reconsider are listed as follows: 1. Guests are asking to be served outside. Over 250'people have signed a petition requesting that food be allowed to be served outside.. 2. I would like to :serve only lunch, when parking is not as big a problem as• at night. 3. I would be willing to block off an equal number of seats inside for every seat served outside. 4. Confusion on the-part of the customer and visitors as to why they cannot eat outside at our establishment when other establishemnts (such as Bella Mia) allow their patrons to eat. their' meals outside. ' 7�PPe11ant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please,list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST B'E SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HL DATE 01, THE DECISION. Planning Commission Minutes 5/11/88 21. UP -87 -019 . Trattoria Restaurant, 1451.0 Big Basin Way, request for use permit V -87 -032 approval of plans to have outdoor dining in connection with a restaurant in the C -C zone district. In addition, a parking variance is requested since the expansion of the serving area will require more parking spaces than what is currently available within Parking District #4. Planner Caldwell presented the Report to the Planning Commission, May-1 1, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:27 P.M. Mr. Michael Del Monico, Applicant, commented as follows: - Application for outdoor dining was made per customer request - Cited the betterment of the Village area and revenues brought into the City by this operation - If number of seats were of concern, the 'same number of seats could be removed from the inside area while patrons were using the outdoor seating - A petition was presented Mr. Del Monico responded to Commissioner Harris, that the parking lot to the rear of the restaurant was always full; one reason being that customers of other businesses used the lot. Luncheon hours of operation were defined as 11:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Commissioner Tucker questioned how an arrangement as that proposed would be controlled. Commissioner Burger noted the limited outdoor space available for five tables. The Trattoria Manager added that there was not much concern about parking during lunch; the Restaurant was primarily a night time operation. Mr. John De Monto, Property Owner of an adjacent site, commented as follows: Asked that the impacts for the Village as a whole be considered - Site in question had one building with three restaurants and adjacent tenants ready to open, all of which could come in for variances Noted the major problem oftrying to police such a situation Cited the existing major parking problem in the Village BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11 :39 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Siegfried concurred regarding potential impacts if other business owners requested like variances and questioned how to control of such a permitted use. While favorable to the success of the Village, the parking problems must be solved first. Commissioner Tucker concurred. and noted that she could not make Finding 4. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY UP -87 -019. Passed 6 -0. TUCKER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DENY V -87 -032. Passed 6 -0. I �, rl 1 107- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION UP -87 -019, V-87-032 TRATTORIA REST. 14510 Big Basin Way outdoor dining/ Parkin Z5 OS .1 �rj Iq O 1p OAK ST SCHOOL '17 —/0.— 37 al -as _N ,v 913 14524 S17.1 lo REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins Ping. Dir. Approval DATE: May 11, 1988 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION UP -87 -019, V -87 -032; 14510 Big Basin Way APPLICANT /OWNER: Trattoria Restaurant/ Cali Investment Co. APN• 517 -09 -068 ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 19.040(b) and (a) and 15- 55.070, the applicant is requesting use permit approval to allow outdoor dining in conjunction with a restaurant. In addition, a parking variance is needed to allow the applicant to expand the restaurant's service area without providing any additional parking spaces. ISSUES: Although the proposal to provide outdoor dining is consistent with the land use objectives of the draft'Village Plan, staff cannot make the required findings to support the parking variance. Granting the variance would set a bad precedent by encouraging other restaurant owners in the Village to expand their seating capacity without providing additional parking spaces. Given the parking problems that currently exist in the Village during peak hours, any proposal that generates a demand for additional off- street parking should not be approved unless the requisite number of parking stalls are provided as required by the City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny both applications PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 2/13,/88. UP -87- 019, V -87 -032 have been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 4/27/88 and direct mailing to property owners.within 500' of the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Exhibit A, Variance Findings for Denial 3. Exhibit B, Use Permit Findings for Denial 4., Exhibit "C ", Plans RC /kah 4/88 1 UP -87 -019, V -87 -032; 14510 Big Basin Way A. I STAFF ANALYSIS Project Description/ Background The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve a use permit application to allow outdoor dining in conjunction with an existing restaurant located at 14510 Big Basin Way. A total of 5 tables with a seating capacity o:f 2- persons per table are proposed to be placed against an exterior wall of the restaurant. In addition to the use permit, a parking variance is required to allow the applicant to expand the restaurant's seating capacity without providing any additional off - street parking spaces. The Trattoria Restaurant is located at the corner of Big Basin Way and 4th Street in the Village. The restaurant occupies. approximately 2,800 sq. ft. of.a 20,100 sq. ft. two - building retail complex which was constructed approximately 5 years ago. At the same time that the retail buildings were constructed, Parking District #4 (PD #4) was created. In addition to providing parking for the two retail buildings, PD #4 also serves the 1,900 sq. ft. building located at 14583 Oak St. PD #4 has a total of 58 parking spaces or 1 space /380 sqi ft. of gross floor area contained in the three buildings. Therefore, given the established parking ratio (1/380) and the total floor area of the three buildings that PD #4 serves, all of the parking spaces have been allocated and no additional spaces are available at this time. According to City Code Section 15- 35.030(p), if a restaurant has outdoor dining "one parking space for every three seats contained in an outdoor dining area shall be provided." Consequently, the applicant's proposal requires that they provide 3 additional off - street parking spaces. Since all of PD #41s parking spaces have been allocated, the Planning Commission must make the required variance findings. Analysis 1. Variance - In order for the Planning Commission to approve the parking variance, the findings contained in City Code Section 15- 70.060(a)-(e) and (g) must be made. In this case, staff cannot make all of the required variance findings ( see Exhibit A). While the applicant's specific request would. not generate a significant demand for additional parking spaces in the Village, the precedent setting nature of the request is a cause for much concern. In staff's opinion, if this variance request is approved, other restaurants, coffee shops and similar uses in the Village may try to expand their seating capacity by providing outdoor dining areas without providing any additional off- street parking spaces. If this scenario is correct, parking demand in the Village would increase while the total number of available off - street parking spaces would remain constant. N UP -87 -019, V -87 -032 14510 Big Basin Way Given that finding a parking space in the Village during peak hours is difficult at best, any project that generates demand for additional off- street parking but does not provide the required number of parking stalls, would only exacerbate the parking problem. 2. Use Permit - Given staff's position on the variance request, the use permit application cannot be supported. Specifically, staff cannot make the required use permit findings (see Exhibit B). Although, the applicant's proposal to provide outdoor dining is consistent with the objectives of the Village Plan, recently approved by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council, the proposal does not meet the purposes of Article 15 -19 and would be detrimental to the public's welfare. . Specifically, one of the purposes of Article 15 -19 is "to provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial development, including off - street parking and loading areas." The applicant's proposal would not meet the above objective in that it would generate additional parking demand while not providing the required number of parking spaces. The proposal would be detrimental to the public welfare in that it would set a bad precedent and contribute to the parking problem that currently exists in the Village. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny both applications. 3 San Jose Construction Co., Inc. General Contractors June 28, 1988 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ATTN: Mayor Don Peterson RE: LA TRATTORIA RESTAURANT USE PERMIT /PARKING VARIANCE On May 11th, 1988, we submitted a letter to the Planning Commission expressing our position and serious concerns for the La Trattoria Restaurant variance application. The results of the Planning Commission hearing were unanimous for denial. On July 6th, 1988, you will be considering the appeal of denial of the use per- mit to have outdoor dining in connection with the La Trattoria Restaurant at 14510 Big Basin Way. We kindly request that you would agree with the staff re- commendation for denial and uphold the unanimous Planning Commission decision. As an adjacent land owner of the former Security Pacific Bank Building located at 14550 Big Basin Way, I must register my objection to the proposed variance appeal. It is common knowledge that one of the most severe problems facing the Village is the lack of adequate parking. To allow a variance from the establisned standards would seem illogical and inappropriate. Any expansion of service areas, which would require more parking, should either be accompanied by the provision of the parking or reduction in service areas within the facility. Presently, our property is vacant. We have first hand knowledge that employees and customers visiting the adjacent shops and restaurants utilize our parking spaces. These include spaces that we actually own plus those which are assigned to us as part of the parking district. When our building is placed back in ser- vice, these spaces will need to be utilized by our own customers and tenants. An approval of the requested variance will dramatically impact our property to the south, and could encourage additional property owners and merchants to apply for their entitlement for similar variances. I strongly request denial of this appeal and application. Sincerely, SAN JOSE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. JD /dkw VIA 1210 Coleman Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 -4397 ❑ (408) 986 -8711 ❑ FAX (408) 986 -0278 License 420837 o- ' J F�o�Ef-rr1�j I�l 014r bkld v/aY , .tiAKAToCrA, Ga, a .V;. Gw a —W —Y. RECEIVED DEC 2 8 1987 PLANNING DE I \1 - );-03Z 1 San Jose Construction Co., Inc. General Contractors June 28, 1988 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: LA TRATTORIA RESTAURANT USE PERMIT /PARKING VARIANCE ATTN: Mayor Don Peterson On May 11th, 1938, we submitted a letter to the Planning Commission expressing our position and serious concerns for the La Trattoria Restaurant variance application. The results of the Planning Commission hearing were unanimous for denial. On July 6th, 1988, you will be considering the appeal of denial of the use per- mit to have outdoor dining in connection with the La Trattoria Restaurant at 14510 Big Basin Way. We kindly request that you would agree with the staff re- commendation for denial and uphold the unanimous Planning Commission decision. As an adjacent land owner, of the former Security Pacific Bank Building located at 14550 Big Basin Way, I must register my objection to the proposed variance appeal. it is common knowledge that one of the most severe problems facing the Village is the lack of adequate parking. To allow a variance from the established standards would seem illogical and inappropriate. Any expansion of service areas, which would require more parking, should either be accompanied by the provision of the parking or reduction in service areas within the facility. Presently, our property is vacant. We have first hand knowledge that employees and customers visiting the adjacent shops and restaurants utilize our parking spaces. These include spaces that we actually own plus those which are assigned to us as r ?rt cf the parking district. When our building is placed back in ser- vice, these spaces will need to be utilized by our own customers and tenants. An approval of the requested variance will dramatically impact our property to the south, and could encourage additional property owners and merchants to apply for their entitlement for similar variances. I strongly request denial of this appeal and application. Sincerely, SAN JOSE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. HN D1 MANT JD /dkw 1210 Coleman Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 -4397 0 (408) 986 -8711 ❑ FAX (408) 986 -0278 License 420837 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:, (/ ..� AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 6. 1988 CITY MGR APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:___ Maintenance Department ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: HAKONE DONATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- R=mmended Motions Accept and acknowledge by way of letter from the Mayor, a donation of $10.00 to Hakone Gardens from Girl Scout Troop 500. Report Summary Girl Scout Troop 500 of Saratoga has donated $10.00 to Hakone Gardens. A copy of the letter of acknowledgement has been forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fi�dl., Impagl Attachments Letter of acknowledgement. Motion & Vote J SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. 14� Z AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 6, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: BICYCLE WARNING SIGNS ON PIERCE ROAD AND QUITO ROAD Recommended Motion: Authorize the removal of the bicycle warning signs on Pierce Rd. and on Quito Rd. Authorize "Narrow Roadway" signs to be installed in place of the "Narrow Roadway Unsafe for Bicycles" signs. These "Narrow Roadway" signs should be supplemented with a W71 (Next Miles) sign. Report Summary: In November, 1987 we looked into the possibility of using advisory warning signs for bicycles using Pierce Road and Quito Road, because of the narrow winding_char- acteristics of said roadways. This was brought to our attention by a resident who had seen signs of this nature placed on Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos. After reviewing the matter, a report was submitted to the Public Safety Commission, recommending the installation of such signs. At its meeting of December 7, 1987, the Public Safety Commission considered the request and unanimously supported the installation of these signs. At its meeting of January 20, 1988 the City Council approved the installation of the "NARROW ROADWAY UNSAFE FOR BICYCLES" signs on Pierce Road and Quito Road. Shortly after these signs were installed (Jan. 22, 1988) we started receiving com- plaints from bicycle enthusiasts opposing the signs. The bicyclists felt that the signs gave motorists the idea that bicycles did not belong on these roads, and acted as such when encountering anyone on a bicycle. In addition they made the case that bicycles were considered vehicles with the same rights as other vehicles to use these roads. After receiving and considering several phone calls as well as letters, along with a complaint aired at the March 2, 1988 City Council meeting, we are recommending that the signs be removed, and replaced with "NARROW ROADWAY" signs supplemented with "NEXT MILE(S)" signs. This recommendation is supported by the Public Safety Commission. Fiscal Impacts: The cost to replace the "NARROW ROADWAY UNSAFE FOR BICYCLES" signs with "NARROW ROADWAY" signs, with "NEXT MILES" sign would amount to approximately $500.00 and would come from the traffic safety budget (3033 - 3010). Attarhmantc 1. Memo to Public Safety Commission (5/12/88). 2. Agenda Bill - 5/18/88 City Council Meeting. 3. Memo from 6/13/88 Public Safety Commission. Motion and Vote: OTTE o2 §&M& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Commission FROM: Robert S. Shook, City Engineer DATE: May 12, 1988 SUBJECT: Bicycle Warning Signs on Quito and Prospect --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Attached find a copy of my Executive Summary to the City Council concerning the bicycle warning signs recently installed on Pierce and Quito Road. You will see that my recommendation is to remove these signs. We came to this conclusion too late to submit it for your review and still meet the council's requirement that the matter be on their May 18th agenda. I apologize for not completing our staff work on this matter in time to submit it to you for your review prior to our submission to the City Council. It is certainly not our intention to bypass you in these matters. Your input and support are very much appreciated. Subsequent to our determining to recommend removal of these signs, I was-informed through the City Attorney's office that the jurisdiction of Los Gatos and Santa Clara County had both taken similar actions. with regard to removing these -signs from their streets. Their actions, like ours, was not prompted by' liability questions, but due to the input from the bicycle community. Ro S. Shook Ci y Engineer RSS /df Attachment SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: May 18, 1988 ORIGINATING DEPT: . Engineering AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Bicycle Warning Signs on Pierce Road and Quito Road Recommended Motion: Authorize the removal of the bicycle warning signs on Pierce Road and Quito Road. Report Summary: In November, 198.7 we looked into the possibility of using advisory warning signs for-bicycles-using Pierce Road and Quito Road, because of the narrow winding char- acteristics of.said roadways. This was brought to our attention by a'resident who had seen signs of this nature placed on Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos. After reviewing the matter, a report was submitted to the Public Safety Commission, recommending the installation of such signs. At its meeting of December 7, 1987, the Public Safety Commission considered the request and unanimously supported the installation of these signs. At its meeting of January 20, 1988 the City Council approved the installation of the "NARROW ROADWAY UNSAFE FOR BICYCLES" signs on Pierce Road and Quito Road. Shortly after these signs were installed (Jan. 22, 1988) we started reciving . complaints from bicycle enthusiasts opposing the signs. The bicyclists felt that the signs gave motorists the idea that bicycles did not belong on these roads, and acted as such'when encountering anyone on a bicycle. In addition they made the case that bicycles were considered vehicles with the same rights as other vehicles to use these roads.- After receiving -and considering several phone calls as well as letters, along with a complaint aired at the March 2, 1988 City Council meeting,. we are recommending that the signs be removed. Fiscal Impacts: The cost to remove these signs would amount to less than1$50.00 and come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033- 3010). Attachments: 1. Memo to Public Safety Commission. 2. .Public Safety Commission Memo. 3.' Agenda Bill - 1/20/88 City Council Meeting. 4. Documentation opposing sign installation. Motion and Vote: ,. �O •�q l�pg� oguw oce §&MZUQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson June 30, 1988 Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles To: City-Engineer Donald Peterson From: Community Services Director Subject: Bicycle Safety Signs on Pierce and Quito Roads At the regular meeting of the Saratoga Public Safety Commission on June 13, 1988, the Commission discussed the above referenced subject. Representatives from a variety of cyclist organizations were present to share their views opposing the City's placement of signs on Quito and Pierce Roads which read "Narrow Road- - Unsafe for Bicyclists." After a considerable amount of discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed that the existing signs should be removed, and in their place a sign reading "Narrow Road Next XX Miles" should be installed. The Commission recognized the importance of conforming to the standards established in the California Traffic Manual, and indicated whatever sign comes closest to their above stated suggestion would be the most desirable. As a footnote, the Commission also discussed the possibility of a diamond sign containing a p.ictagraph of a bicyclist. While these signs would certainly warn ,motorists-,of the possibility that bicyclists would be on the road, the Commission was concerned that plac.ement of such a sign would imply the City was recommending that particular route for a bicyclist to use over other alternative routes. Because of liability issues associated with the possible confusion. that might result, the Commission recommended against the use of the diamond shaped bicyclist pictagraph signs. The Commission made their recommendation without prejudice, meaning that the staff or any member of the public can bring the issue before them again should they have any further questions or comments. If you have any questions or comments, _please feel free to contact the undersigned_ Todd W. Argo jm cc: City Manager cc: Public Safety Commission CITY OF SARATOGA EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM DATE: July 6, 1988 DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL /'" //� ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: SD -87 -019, DR -87 -123, UP -87 -017, DR -87 -124 - 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Appeal of Planning Commission decision denying a project to construct 10- townhouse units and two retail buildings on a 2.7 acre site. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion: If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission's decision, then it should deny the appeal. Report Summary: The appellant wishes to construct 10- townhouses and two retail buildings, totalling 14,968 sq. ft.,on a 2.7 acre lot owned by the City. On June 8, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously denied all four applications. In denying the project, Commissioners expressed the following concerns: - density (i.e. number of townhomes and total square footage of retail buildings) - view impacts - access to the retail portion of the project - proposed location of Building #2. The appellant has stated that the proposed project addresses the neighbors' and Planning Commission's concerns regarding privacy and view impacts and meets the requirements of the sales contract between the City and the Developers. Fiscal Impacts• Income at $1,600,000.00 from sale of the City property. The proposed retail use will generate additional sales tax revenue and the townhomes will result in a slight increase in the City's property tax base. Attachments: 1. Report to the City 2. Appeal application 3. Planning Commission 4. Report to Planning 5. Report to Planning 6. Report to Planning 7. Plans Motion and Vote Council and letter minutes, 6/8/88 Commission, SD -87 -019 Commission, DR -87 -124, UP -87 -017 Commission, DR -87 -123 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6/27/88 COUNCIL MEETING: 7/6/88 SD -87 -019, DR -87 -123, UP -87 -017, DR -87 -124 - 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Appeal of Planning Commission decision denying a SUBJECT:project to construct 10- townhouse units and two retail buildings on a 2.7 acre site. A. Background Saratoga Partners is appealing a Planning Commission decision denying all four development applications for the 2.7 acre city - owned site located at the southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. In a unanimous decision, the Planning Commission denied the appellant's tentative subdivision, use permit and design review applications to construct 10- townhomes and two retail buildings on the subject site. In voting to deny the project, the Planning Commission voiced several concerns about the project including access, view impacts, density, and the location of retail Building #2. Specifically, a majority of the Commissioners felt that the townhome portion of the project was too dense and would have an adverse impact on views when seen from the adjacent single family residences to the east. In addition, the Planning Commission felt that the proposed design, height and location of retail Building #2 would have a negative visual impact on the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue corner. Given Building #21s proposed setbacks and height, the structure would crowd the intersection, be visually obtrusive, and interfere with line -of -sight for people turning right onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road from Cox Avenue. Finally proposed access to the retail portion of the project site was questioned since construction of another driveway cut along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would result in a total of three ingress /egress points along that road between Pierce Road and Cox Avenue. The Commission felt that the proposed driveway was unnecessary since a mutual ingress /egress easement currently exists across the property to the south which could provide access to this site. B. Analysis The appellants argue that they have addressed all of the Planning Commission's concerns regarding view and privacy impacts and that the project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. They point out that the Planning Staff was able to make all of the required findings to support the project (see enclosed staff reports) and argue that the project is in compliance with the development agreement signed by them and the City. C. Recommendation If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's decision then it should deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Yu M ek Hsia P1 ing Director Name of Appellant,:' Address Telephone: Name of Applicant: 'Project File N.o.: Project Address: Project Description,: Date Received. It.3 riAn bate X' e e 4e L CIT-USE C,, 5- Pee 3V 7) APPEAL APPLICATTON 'SARATOGA PARTNERS' 1520 Parkmoor,Avenue San Jose, I CA 95128_ (408) 279-1520 SARATOGA PARTNERS -,.Norman-c. Hulberg SD'87-019 DR 87-123,*UP 87-071,'DR.87-124' 12902•Saratoga-Sunnyvale-Road Tentative Map Subdivision for Retail and Residential. Also Design Review Approval for the project; J Decision Being Appealed: Denial of application by the -Planning Commission ' Grounds for the Appeal (Lett er may be attached): See attached letter. ' Norman C. Hui berq. /- Appc-L.Lant's Signature *Please do not Ci --'Y -Offices-. sign this If you wish APpl,icut`ion until it is presented at 'the 0I appeal please spe C'f'c POOP10 to be notified of this list them on a separate sheet. TJIrS APP►.TC,Mm i _j F G -H DEVELOPMENT COMPANY June 14, 1988 Ms. Betsy Cory City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Dear Ms. Cory: Attached is our application to appeal the Planning Commission denial for the proposed retail and townhouse project at the southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. We believe this application was denied on an unreasonable basis. The proposed project complies with city zoning requirements and was recommended for approval by the Planning Department staff. In a course of four meetings or hearings with the Planning Commission, we made further revisions to the design to meet the concerns of the Planning Commission. Further, changes were made to accommodate the neighbors. As a background to this appeal, some history.of the project is appropriate. After a 1986 decision by the Saratoga City Council-to sell the 2.75 acres of City -owned land at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue, the City hired the firm of C2G /Civil Consultants Group to study possible uses of the site. In October, 1986 this study was submitted to the City of Saratoga with seven possible development plans. Recommendation of the study was for a mixed use with commercial on Saratoga - S'u.nnyvale Road.and multi- family use on Cox Avenue east of Rodeo C.reek•(copy of Site Plan enclosed as Exhib-it 1). Our ultimate proposal was quite compatible with the C2G recommendations. .1520 ParlunoorAvenue • San Jose, CA 95128 • (408) 279 -1520 2 In February, 1'9.87 the City of Saratoga sent out requests for proposals for the purchase of the 2.75 -acre site. The two alternative forms of development for the site were 1) multi - family residential use, or 2) mixed use with retail commercial for the area between Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Rodeo Creek and multi - family for the land eas.t of the creek. Provisions included) no driveway access to Cox Avenue from the commercial area and not more than one driveway access from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Other restrictions included dedication and improvement of bounding streets; under - grounding of utilities, prorata share (25 %) for cost of traffic signal at Saratoga- Sunnyvale and Pierce Roads, and improvements to Rodeo Creek. In April, 1987 we submitted a proposal to the City of Saratoga for the purchase and development of the 2.75 -acre site. Our proposal was for 15,000 square feet of commercial buildings on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and 13 townhouses on the area east of the creek. A copy of' this plan is enclosed as E x h i b i -t- I -1- . After further negotiation with the City, we agreed to reduce the number of townhouses from.13 to 10 and th-e purchase price wa.s reduced. On September 2, 1987 we entered into a contract:-with the City of Saratoga for purchase of the property.: We have continued to rely on this contract in preparing plans-and applications for the project. .A-copy of th -e Site Plan which is part of thi -s- contract is enclosed-as Exhibit "A". The contract specifies the-proposed development of the property be in general conformance with�our. site plan, which is Exhibit "A of th.e.con.tract. More specifically, the proposed development section of the contract describes the project as fallouts: "a). retail commercial. cons isting of. two. single- story buildings having a total floor area,-of not more-than 15,000 square feet, one building to have a floor area of approximately 4,500 square feet and the second building approximately 10,500 square feet:" "b) multi - famil.y residential c- nsisting of five' two -story buildings containing ten townhouses having a combined floor area of not more than 25,000 square feet including garages, together with a swimming pool." 3 Our project is subject to approval by the City of Saratoga to allow construction of multi- fam.ily structures within a C -N zoning district and for design review approval pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Approvals also must be obtained from Caltran.s and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Subsequent to the original contract with the City, we have worked with the Planning Department staff in making further changes requested by the staff. More recently, we have met with the Saratoga Planning Commission a.nd adjoining neighbors in an attempt to obtain'approvaI of our project to everyone's satisfaction. We have made several modifications to ou,r project which we believe are consistent with the sale contract while still attempting' to'meet the Planning Commissions' concerns. The Planning Commissions' denial of the project seems to be based primarily on the density of the townhouse project and impact on adjoining houses in the case of the townhouse development. In the case of the retail project, the major concerns seem to be the location of the retail building closest to the corner and the existence of a driveway on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. We note that in these regards, the current submittal is similar to the plan originally provided to the City at the time our contract was consummated. Further, it is quite compatible with the study completed on behalf of the City.of Saratoga by C2G. Further, in the cou:r -se of plan revisions, we made changes which created even less impact on surrounding properties. For example, the townhouse project was altered so that only two units back-up directly to the single family homes bounding the project on the east. At the request of the neighbors (Mr. and Mrs. Khokhani), the swimming pool was relocated to the site adjoining their property with two townhouse units being moved t.o a location bounding the creek. We believe that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses and represents a desirable development which is consistent with our contract, a.s well as the City of Saratoga zoning requirements. We respectfully request approval of this project by th-e City Council. Sincerely, Norman C. Hulberg 7 Saratoga Partners NCH: bz I i ---A ..,.,nmArrial EXHIBIT c� Q O O F- a Q N 1 w J Q Z Z N LOCATION MAP PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA10-50'5'p PARKING REQUIRED Tart PROVIDED 73 NO.OF RESIDEN. UNITS 10 AREA PER FLOOR1250•'. NO. OF STORIES 2 PARKING REQUIRED 25 PROVIDED 25 BLDG. COVERAGE 23'/. MAX. HEIGHT 20' PARKING TOTAL 100 sing) tae mly residential 2.75 ACRES exisiting �o�rN ° is .«. SITE P LAN MIX USE • SPLIT __..s .s a _ :1 f. r Q C'3 O N Q � Cc a Q � (n LL O W (j) I U f i w -a -sa w.. 8642 - r> V 1 !. I2-o I Lo, Pip _j, R Lim T TOW N- \ \ \ /�. 7 1 �1► -- - EXHII E3LDC3 -A f ` 1 7�J \ 4 ` -- 1 I I � \ TAJL.1CaIIlVV I � •� t i i j 1 H.c ' ps e:ANY - 4 UM TOWN- TGPOr, House I I;D =;3.; 4MT TOWN ,EiOtJ86 I3LD0 1 \ y SLOG B i l C'. us Y,awcoNvaNttsrica { �:• l �� : 4ESOO SL3.FTir I 0 _(D 1� 1 i 4 _ _. iv -m Si1�r1T'D'.�tt.'.11gf••I - - � _. -�. - y'O BUILDING ti `• \` \ ok Wer- Fm Ix- — _ � fit• s -:_i - •- a I.0 � Jp '�01 '`mot „� '� w ��- .� •- 1 , c f - 1� T�' Z Ate• � �.e. . � ,�=�; I t et ; r? � ¢ f i'�.�;'`v � �'�.,, l:ca�v►Jrg Ntt,� • SITE ,PLAIN - _ PI'- ASE I1 RQ'Y'A'►F3..; c�r,�'r€ _ % 2 (SITE STATISTICS) STREET DEDICATION, , _ 1,751 NET LOT SIZE '.18,135 5 B.C.WATER EASEMENT 25,8.81 SQ.F T.' BUILDING - BUILOINO 01 10,877l4.8 BG.FT. BUILDING •E: 4,71al.0 SQ.I<T:. TOTAL AREA 880.6 PARKING REGUIR6Da I►�g90.m/BOO 7 98BTALL PARKING PRoVIOHUD..�� BTANOAR13 33�' COMPACT H:C. B TOTAL BO TQ COV Elm” ; t• - .i•tJlL:2NOY' . N,.� PARX#NO 9 QR1v6 h 151180 e®. PT.. 2 -6on'!n r- LANO»OAPPJI 2,007.6lSQI". 36'.;% EASEMENT: 25,881 SQ.FT. _44.53+5 TOTAU 68,136 SQ.FT. Planning Commission Minutes 6/8/88 12. 8D -87 -019 - Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., request for tentative " subdivision approval to accommodate 10 townhomes and a common area lot, and a 1.29 acre retail-parcel in the C -N zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this p.:oject. Continued from May 25,, 1988. , -------------- - - - - -- - . 13. DR -87 -123 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale. Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a 4,716 sq. ft. ,and a 10,275. sq. ft. retail building on a 1.29 acre parcel in the C -N zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City iCode. In addition, design review approval of the proposed sign program s also requested: Continued from May 25,.19$8. 14. . UP- 87=147 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale,Rd., request for use permit DR -87 -124 I and design review approvals of plans to construct ten (10) townhouse' -.-units in a C -N (neighborhood commercial) zone district. A Negative Dec larati6n has been prepared for this project. Continued from-May 25, 1988. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.- 'Planning -- irectof Esia presented the Reports to the Planning Commission, June 8, 1988.. The City Attorney provided information requested on the Application. The Public Hearing was,then reopened. Mr. Norm Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, commented as follows: Retail Project: main concerns were driveway and location of retail /commercial Building 2 - . Additional 3 ft. building setback on Cox, 2 1/2 ft. on Saratoga- Sunnyvale were provided Building height of 18 ft. was reduced by 2 ft. with landscaping added to soften the building Parking: loss of one space; however, parking provided was in excess of thatrequired . Driveway was 200 ft. from the Cox Ave. /Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. intersection Traffic consultant had completed sight line studies and would present such information - P.G.& E. would not approve undergrounding the utility pole as stated in SD -87 -019, 10. c. In SD- 87- 019, 27., Water District had already approved a 3'ft. distance from the curb - Summarized that a number of project redesigns and reconfiguarations had been completed — _A Ivor. .Michael Dillon, Landscape Architect, commented as follows A, variety of foliage heights and shades was used to create the illusion of depth at the comer, of the retail/commercial.Building 2; - A.217 ft. height on landscape screening was maintained to. insure clearance of sight lines ' Mr. Gary Black, Traffic Consultant, answered questions on the rise `in the road addressed by Commissioner Burger, the Commissioner expressed concern that the view would be obscured. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Saratoga Partners, provided additional technical information. y Mr. Hulberg commented as follows on the townhouse project: - Height of the proposed units was reduced to 25 ft. 5 in; such could not be further reduced Bulk was reduced by making the structures narrower, in.addition.a. hip roof was used ! Privacy impacts: changes were made to Units 7 and 8 in balconies and type of glass used On -site Parking: additional spaces were provided. Density on -site: density originallyproposed had been reduced; with respect to compatibility with-the surrounding area, he noted that this was a transition site - Noted efforts to achieve' -what he considered to be a minimal impact on existing homes;. landscaping would furthermitigate impacts Mr. Dillon noted the existing dense landscape screening between the townhouse development ` J and existing residential; he provided.information requested on types of vegetation proposed. Mr. Kand Khokhani,'20391 Wolcot Way, Saratoga, cited the following two issues: Questioned whether a variance was being requested in this Application Following findin -s could not he, made: Avoids unrca,gnable iLnterference with views and privacy Minimi -:ed 0.e nc- rcept:ion of bulk ib c; .vita mz FL:,rnvnding area 8 8 `(con' t )� - J = . Ms. Dee Folger, 20502 Wardell Rd., Saratoga; commented as follows: - Cited the setback and height limitations applied to fences in residential - Noted that a 20 ft. tall building could be sited approximately the same:setback distance as a fence on residential property across the street; building would be,5 ft, higher than her home The Building would go straight up; the appearance of bulk was not mitigated - Questioned whether the. City Council realized the impact and visual appearance of 15,000' sq. ft. of development on the site in question Cited traffic impacts to vehicles approaching Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. from Cox Ave. Compared commercial and residential setback requirements; such was not evenhanded '.Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows:, Cited discussions held that the General Plan ' - Proposed development,was a far cry from that envisioned for this-site Provided an example of another retail /commercial development and impacts from such Asked for.the ieast impacts possible from this project; such did not seem to be the case Ms. Suzanne Armbruster, 21169 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Concurred with above concerns regarding traffic/safety hazards at this intersection Noted the small amount of acerage available and the resulting overcrowding Asked that as much open space as possible be maintained ;Cited the office /commercial vacancy rate; proposal was unfair to existing property owners ; - Objected to the commercialization of Saratoga - Noted that such proposals compromised the property values in the City",,, y Dr. Stutzman 1959 Park Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows:' - - Proposal was another example of the tendency to increase density Cited traffic impacts on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and noted that the proposal increased strip commercialization; such further impacted traffic Asked that traffic and density be decreased to reasonable levels, maintain property values at' a higher level, increase the value of the neighborhood _ . - Development of the nature proposed was not for the good of the community Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, stated that the June elections sent a message that Saratogans were tired of overdevelopment - Mr. Hulberg responded as follows: - - -- - Noted that a balance between what the developer, City and neighbors'needed.was required The question was, " what is the best use of this site ?" - ' Parcel was a transition site not suitable to building single family homes .on Reviewed site constraints and asked that the Commission consider whatiwas reasonable Plan proposed was a good project that minimized impacts SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT.8 35 P.M. Passed.6 -0 Commissioner Burger commented as follows: - Commission had jealously • guarded the residential character of Saratoga; commercial development had been allowed within the General. Plan zoning guidelines' Applicant had:reminded the Commission of the development agreement held with the City and asked that the total square footage allowed on the commercial portion and the ten town houses on the residential portion of the•site be noted; text of the agreement cited Proposal was viewed in the li ght of logical managed growth and responsible land use policy S Concerns previously: stated at the first Public Hearing and the Study Session, included:. (_1l f Driveway access Retail Building I and its proximity. to `the- street and height;, building had not'been redesigned in accord with suggestions previously•made Residential Project:, too dense for the property Concerns had not been met; she was unable to vote for the project as presented Commissioner Tucker con,cu.rrc41 t1,�tl ac, ?�ic<t lic cr► +aeon regarding tlae 12 ft. setback where 36 ft. was required; such would ldl /cf-sely irnpactflic dleighbothood. 6 / !.8,8 - - -- Commissioner ^ Siegfried was of the same opinion as expressed at previous hearings, . namely, that Building 2 would have a negative impact on the corner, and the residential project was too dense; he would not vote in favor of this project as presented. Commissioner Hams concurred and added that at the time of the agreement', the impact may not have been envisioned; now that plans had been presented, impacts were of great concern. She was - unfavorable to the appearance, especially since the project was adjacent to a neighbor- hood. From its first hearing, she had asked for alternative configurations for this site. Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: Driveways proposed were acceptable - Setbacks, safety and privacy were - minimally acceptable Density: stated that he had no comment = ,. While the project was a transition site, he concluded that the project was barely acceptable- . ~E Citizens. of-Saratoga did not wish such; he would not vote in favor of the project proposed Chairwoman Guch commented as follows: - - , Reiterated concerns on retail Building 2; wished to see greater mitigations incorporated Building 2 was still too close to the corner despite adjustments made by the Applicant Was unable to envision this Building as proposed, located on the corner of the site - Did not have the same concerns on Building 1; existing impacts would not be increased, - Would not vote for the Application as proposed Did not have concerns on privacy impacts of the townhouse project; such had a very-nice presentation; noted appreciation for the redesign submitted - . Felt that the City Council had set maximum densities which were open to negotiation'.,' egotiation , V - . Stated that she would not vote for the project as presently proposed SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SD -87 -019. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR -87 -123. Passed 6 7.0 . SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY- WITHOUT PREJUDICE UP -87 -017 AND DR -87 -124. Passed 6 -0.: .r REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Calkins DATE: June 8j 1988 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -87 -019; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. APPLICANT/ OWNER:. Saratoga Partners/ City of Saratoga APN:393 -01 -001 Q - N 1 4 1 _. U) C2) C3) !7 (3 366 -13 366 -13 -7 73 366 -13- 7/ i 554 7-0501 r8 -98 2G542 I 94 cl: 555- 20543 C19) t -18- 503 -18 -95 O 20502- J Soa -(8 -e9 . 4 } 8- rC �Z16 a-S 87 I So3 -l8 -0 12 7 95 2B4f 553 -1 04 1 fzsgo 303 -19 -63 !2.848 SoS-17 12850 1z8S5 15p3_ 19 SOB - 19 -44 18 12921(14) . 013) Sc3- /9- 0, Iz93l 49 1` 12920 zo OZ 3$1 Ic h ry� (4 8) ZD370 3�•S6 12751 391 -09 219 iz771 391-0; 22c 12791 C1 391- 1 f9^ . Z03• 391 1 C3 pp— (-3? 20360 391-03~ zc PLANNER ?S WORKSHEET Plan Check y Vicinity /locator map included Dimensions shown on plot plan Adjacent structures V/ Directional arrow V Trees labelled Plans reflect field conditions Heights shown on cross sections /Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans /Natural and finished grade on cross sections Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations /Roof pitch shown -All. sheets included in submittal with required reductions 7colors submitted Staff Reports /Conditions from other agencies /department correct /Consistent figures throughout report History files examined /Correct address & application number on all pages of the report Description consistent with advertisement /Plans labelled /order of attachment consistent with list -/All attachments included 7 ypographical errors corrected Dates on the resolutions correct A:checklist File No. SD -87 -019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 8/21/87 Application complete: 10/26/87 Notice published: 3/30/88 Mailing completed: 3/31/88 Posting completed: 3/17/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Purusant to,City Code Section 14- 20.070, the applicant requests tentative.map approval for a 12 -lot subdivision of a 2.7 acre parcel (i..e. City owned property) in the C -N zone district. The proposed subdivision includes a 1.3 acre parcel located on the westerly side of the creek,, adjacent to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., 10- townhouse parcels and a "common area" parcel (1.4 acres total) located on the easterly side of the creek fronting on Cox Avenue. This item is continued from the 4/19/88 regular adjourned Planning Commission meeting and the 5/17/88 Committee -of- the -Whole meeting. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and zoning code requirements, and the site is suitable for the proposed types and densities of development. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated, and according to the traffic report, the project will not create any adverse impact on traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the tentative map by adopting the Negative Declaration and Resolution SD -87 -019 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Negative Declaration initial 3. Resolution SD -87 -019 4. C.O.W report dated 5/17/88 5. Planning Commission minutes meeting) ° 6. Report to Planning Commission 7. Development Agreement between 8. Exhibit A, Plans 1 study dated 4/19/88 (regular adjourned dated 4/13/88 the City and Applicant EXHIBIT A VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical' difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that denying the applicants' request to have outdoor dining would not adversely affect the total restaurant operation. 2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances do not exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district in that in order for any restaurant in the Village area to have outdoor dining, a conditional use permit is required. *4. Granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations, on other properties in the 'same zoning district in that there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the site which would warrant a variance. Although there may be other uses in the "C -C" zone district which do not have sufficient parking, this is not a valid reason to allow the applicant to expand their seating capacity and not provide the requisite number of parking stalls. *5. Granting the Variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that an adequate number of off - street parking spaces will not be provided. In turn, the number of stalls available for the other uses in the area would be reduced. 6. Present or anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or uses of the sites in the vicinity reasonable require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the parking regulation in that given that a moderate to severe parking shortage currently exists in the Village, granting this request would make the parking situation worse. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the parking ordinance is necessary to protect the interests of all commercial uses in the Village. 7.. The granting of the variance should not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets.. *8. The granting of the variance will be inconsistent with, the objectives of the zoning ordinance in that the required number of off- street parking would not be provided. *Findings unable to be made by staff. UP -87 -019; 14510 Big Basin way EXHIBIT B USE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The proposed location of the outdoor dining area is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that additional parking spaces will not be provided in accordance with the zoning code. - 2. The proposed location of the outdoor dining area and the conditions under which it would be operated'or maintained will be detrimental to the public health., safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the applicant's proposal will generate additional. parking demand but doesn't address the parking problem that currently exists in the Village. 3. The proposed outdoor dini -ng will not comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. 3 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDM (Planned Development PARCEL SIZE: 2.7 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2% GRADING REQUIRED: Grading has been completed in accordance with the plan approved by the Planning Commission on 10/19/87. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting tentative map approval of plans to subdivide a 2.7 acre into 12 parcels to accomodate a retail and residential project in the CN zone district. This application is continued from the 4/19/88 regular adjourned Planning Commission meeting and the 5/17/88 Committee-of-the - Whole (C.O.W.) meeting. The primary concerns expressed by the Commission with regards to tentative map application have.to do with the proposed access to the front or retail portion of the site, on -site circulation, and proposed improvements along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. If this project is approved, the applicant would be responsible for satisfying all of the conditions listed in Resolution SD -87- 0.1.9., In short, the applicant would be responsible for widening Cox Avenue by approximately 10 ft.:, installing curb, gutter and sidewalk, widening the existing bridge over Rodeo Creek, widening Saratoga - Sunnyvale Avenue by approximately 4 ft., and installing curb, gutter and sidewalks along the entire site's frontage. The applicant has proposed the construction of a driveway from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 'This driveway (for right turns only) is located approximately 19'0 ft. south of Cox Avenue. Therefore,, including the driveways approved for the retail project to the south, a total of three ingress /egress points will exist between Pierce Road and Cox Avenue. The applicant's traffic consultant has concluded that while "outbound vehicles wishing to merge into the left -turn lane at Cox Avenue need 300 ft. of distance, no safety problem would-be created (since) any driver anticipating difficulty with the merge due to traffic volumes on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road could use either of the.other two driveways" located on the adjacent property to the south. While, the Planning and Engineering staffs would prefer to limit the number of driveways between both properties to a maximum, of two, given the traffic report's conclusion that the third driveway will not create a safety problem, an additional 2 SD -87 -019 driveway to serve the subject property may be satisfactory. Lastly, the on -site circulation of the retail portion of this property will be coordinated with the adjacent .project, since the applicant will be required to grant a mutual access easement to the subject property to the south. B. RECOMMENDATION The proposed subdivision raises no major issues. It is consistent with the City's General Plan and Subdivision and Zoning Codes. Other agencies have recommended conditional approval, and these conditions have been taken into account in preparation of the site plan. As such, staff recommends approval. 3 FORM EIA -lb CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: FILE NO: To al Mut -Far 1� C r one Gt(5 '1r�' LOCATION: 3 � _ - '' -:.;• I. II. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address "and Phone Number of Proponent: Co, a -. •_ .° - 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Qf .5. Name of Proposal,, if applicable: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answ,ers are ,required on attached, sheets.) YES MAYBE 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: N0: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ;• b.. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- / crowding of the soil? V (IPMRaIdim c. topography Chan e in , g or ground surface relief . 1 features? — —. .� —f'•= • d. The destruction, covering or modification of any j ' unique geologic or physical features? " 3. Water. Will the proposal result in:. a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ✓ _ �;, `. ,• Can 7lf �— c.- Alterations to the course or flow of flood wat rs? .... ..:... i -2- YES MAYBE NO e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, / either on or off the site? (/ f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? t g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,,'mudslides, ground, failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality ?' b. The creation of objectionable odors? `• o. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in ,climate, either locally or region- / ally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in:. a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ✓ _ �;, `. ,• Can 7lf �— c.- Alterations to the course or flow of flood wat rs? .... ..:... i -2- i -3- YES MAYBE NO d. Change in the amount of surface water or any / water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited ' to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of / ground waters? — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through / interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- % wise available for public water supplies? v i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? j. Significant changes in'the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass / crops, and aquatic plants)? V b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? i -3- d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? L A �.RT IN non V_ c ysp,"A( ) Aj4 b. Expoosure of pe ple to severe not levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light — or glare? _Z -4- r� YES MAYBE NO C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ✓. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? �! S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:' - a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered / species of animals? V c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement / of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? L A �.RT IN non V_ c ysp,"A( ) Aj4 b. Expoosure of pe ple to severe not levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light — or glare? _Z -4- 11. Population: Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -5- v• YES MAYBE NO 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9.' Natural Resources. Will.the proposal result in: ' a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural' resources? ✓ i' b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable'natural• ✓� resource? _ . 10. Risk of Up's'et. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (:inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? i 11. Population: Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -5- YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand / for new parking? . • `��(�I1 -Si�0 C�rlD��rnn � C. Su tan i impact upon existing transportation systems? ✓ ; d. Alterations to.present pat -terns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? '✓• e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? '✓''' :=' f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, ' or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of-the following areas: a. Fire protection? ✓ b. Police protection? .. C. Schools ?. d. Parks or other.recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities', including roads? — V1, f. Other governmental services? ...........:.•. 15. Energy, Will the proposal result in: ' a. Use of substantial amounts of•fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing •. sources of energy, or require. the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or-natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks,? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17.. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? GPM!--, i b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc Lion of any scenic vista or .view open to the public, / or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19'. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact,upon the or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -7- YES MAYBE NO 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic j archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building,• structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to'cause a Physical change which would affect unique ethnic. cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) �. -6- YES MAYBE NO C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi- dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is / significant.) 4 d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human / beings, either directly or indirectly? Y III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION p(1 sL F v� 1 1 10 0_60 s( et\ ( MIMk�ll1rll _ZLi -9- IV. DETERMINATION 1J On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COUL D NOT have a on the environment, and NEGATIVE DECLARATION iwill benprepared. OI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE QECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. OI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: AG SIGNATURE For i i, ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: (I 1JC0 c ied� a�„�e a r� C;i�r�s� P n�lActr`'1n ham tnc(, ale n,l tins ' io 01-0 �) CAE Code ; n rp fry\. J Q � • �, lever c�UE� ��us c<,u�� c�.��s.� Wa,S �Wc1 C a sc�fiR?( its -acs Liu �, ) fin. C�,e val (miler IDts}erX C (TK NI-. �E -10- (rev. 5/16/80) a { J _ Piir 1'1:,'1 - la CITY OF SARATOGA ENVI "RONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTION'MIRP (to be'.completed bY.appl- scant) FILING FEE DATE: FILE-NO: k—ri GENERAL INF0UMTION: 1 Name and 'address= of developer or project sponsor " ' ' '� jSBJ NORMAN HULBERG /C /O SARATOGA:',EART_NERS Ptq ' 1520 : Parkmoor Avenue, San Jose , CA NN�NG DFP w• 2 -,.-'-.-Address of project: �• r _ :Assessor's'•Parcel Number: •.. . _. ber: #393 -1 -1 3 Name,`address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning' this project: Norman.Hulberg 1520 Parkmoor Avenue an Jose (408) 279 -1520 ' 4 Indicate -number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: 5 List and describe' any other related permits and other public 'approvals 5 } -� required for this project, including those required b cit ` state and federal agencies: Y Y', regional, ;•. .. ,'... g Cal' Trans e 1. Santa Clara Valley Water District , ,s 6. Existing zoning district: C —N 7.. Proposed use of site (project for which this form -is' filed) : . - Retaia.:r•Center 8. Site size: ' ----5-8.5135 sq. ft. 9. Square footage: 1+.,990.5 sq,. ft.� _ 10. Number of floors of construction: One 11. Amount � t of off- street asking: $2 �• 12. Attached plans? Yes X No F 13.: Proposed schedulin g Snrinv t 1 14'. Associated projects.: Yes, townhome units' 1'S.. Anticipated incremental development: ~' nnnP 16. :If residential, include the-number of—units,—schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected: 17. -1f commercial,•ind-icat'e the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: 18- If.:,industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift,. and loading"facilities: :.J. 19. 'Ifinstitutionalk'indicate the major function, estimated employment dS per shift, estimated occupancy, loading,.facilities, and community.. benefits tobed,e*riVed from the project -20.:..Jf the project in . volves a variance, conditional use or rezoning appli- cation, state' this and indicate e learly, why the application is required: :Are 'the tfolli'w' following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss :below all'items checked yes '(attach additional sheets as necessary)*. ES T, Y NO 21.1 Change in existing features of any lakes.or hills, or sub - st an tial alteration of grount contours. 22. n sceni ....Change i vistas c views or v a-s from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. .. Chan ge in pattern, scale or cha,racter'of-general- area of project. • 171 Significant amounts-of solid waste or litter. 2S."' Change in dust, ash, smoke., fumes or odor's in vicinity.. 26. Change-in lake, stream or ground water quality, or quantity," or alteration -of existing drainage patterns. 27.; Substantial change in existing noise or vibration the vicinity.' levels in 17. If commercial, •indicate the type, whether- neighborhood,,city or ' regionally oriented, square'footago of sales area, and loading '. facilities:.-- 14,990.5 sa ft of cross footage commercial - retail neighborhood oriented. 18 If- industrial, indicate t ype, estimated employment per shift, ;and s 'loading faci ` lities: 'tone r, I9. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift,•e's.timated occupancy, loading facilities, and community z ! beInefits'-to be derived from the project none 20 .If' the. project involves a variance, conditional.use or rezoning'appli - ' cation, -state this and indicate clea none why the application ' required".:'. ' ,K. Are the following•items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss al below all items checked yes (attach-additional sheets as necessary).' k YES NO X 21. Change in existing features of . any lakes or hills, or" sub . stantial alteration of ground contours. _ X22. •Change in scenic views or vistas from.exis•ting residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change'in pattern, scale or character'of general area of Y ,r project; X 2:4.- Significant- amounts of solid was or litter. „F 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke', fumes or odors in vicinity*.-. X' 26. Change in lake, stream or ground eater quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels the vicinity. YES r0 28. Sit filled land or on. slope of 1,- perccnt or more. X 29. Use of disposal of .potentially hazardous materials -:".,Su a.. 7 i� .toxic substances, fl"ammables . :or explosives. Y X in demand f 30 Subste oi municipal antial change' services: fire,; water, sewage etc.) r(Police, r .. \ �,,e,JC• t v t X 31.:::Substantially increase fossil- fuel consumption" (clectrzcity, oil, natural gas etc. '•ii r c;. .. 32 Relationship to a -larger project or series of p�rol ects. 4 . i�, • • ":. ... .. .� �\J. +fir l ENVIRONMENTAL-SETTING:'" 33. ::'Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including r information•on topography, soil stability, plants-and animals;' and any'..'.': cultural•, historical or scenic aspects. Describe an existing strut }; tures on the site, and-the use' of- the structures .he Project site 1S presently vacant and is occupied b'v several varietip of trait A small por inn of these.: Will be' removed but then replaced wi h snerimAn trait The site e ��' q. nt ' ' s lopes:•`';: from the northern property at Copt Ave to the 5o horn r , 1; „p - ' are no cultural, historical or 'scenic.4s ects of Sig nifican�P There..::,. . �Psxc �e creek: - which will be maintained accordinq'to:Santa Clara Va11Py Watpr n;P +r;, -+ standards 34. Describe the surrounding ro erties. including-information-on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the .-type of.- land —rise - (residential., * commercial., etcs.•) , intensity Of,.' land use (one= family, apartment houses, shops; department.stores, etc.')' and scale of -development .-(height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). The property is surrounded by Cox Ave 'on-the north the. east and west and vacant hand on the south. The single- fami�l„ residential on generally nee ire 9 y single -story in height and 201• -0 from the-.setbacks. .• s CERTIFICATION:. J hereby certify that the statements furnished above and 'in theNattached ♦ -exhibits present the data and information required for this initial `..;.:F .....:........ .. 7 :• evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements'' and information presented are true and correct to the best of my know ledge and belief. - T DATE: / r n turc I. For:r��n / ��1 Committee -of- the -Whole RepoEt. 5/17/88 C., D., and E, - DR -87 -019, DR -87 -123, DR -87 -124, UP -87 -147, - Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale - (Continued from 4/13/88) . . _ Planner Caldwell reviewed the issues of concern expressed by _ the Commission: third access onto Saratoga- Synnyvale Road, height and location of the corner retail building, configuration and height of the townhomes and location of the swimming pool. Townhomes Norm Hulberg, applicant, presented his revised plans and introduced the new architect for the townhomes, Colin Vessell, and the landscape architect, Mike Dillon. The townhomes were relocated, exterior materials revised from stucco to horizontal wood and the roof changed from a gable to hip. The southern unit was 12 ft. instead of 11 ft. from the east property, line. The total square footage was the same and guest parking remained at 6 spaces. The balcony on the second story, 5 ft. 6 in. width, places the balcony approximately 7 ft. from the property line. The fence along the east will remain. The neighbors commented that they wanted heavy vegetation along the eastern property line to give them privacy and soften the impact of the townhouses., Comments from the Committee included: 1. Balconies along the rear elevations towards the eastern property line should be eliminated. 2. More guest parking should be provided. 3. Project was too dense. 4. Unit at the south should be reudced in height or eliminated. 5. Hours of the pool and spa should be restricted in the CC &R's. 6. Lighting plan should be prepared and submitted to the Commission for approval. 7. Landscaping along the eastern property line should address the privacy 'of the neighbors and provide a screen between properties. Mr. Hulberg stated that he cannot reduce the height. He cannot build less than 10 units without renegotiating the price with Council. Pta-il Buildings wry Black., traffic engineer, described the line of s= rrht. . r,.. C.O.W. Report - (con't) distance to the south; he did not consider any earthen mound or landscaping along the proposed building Of Cox Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale #2 at the corner he saw no Committee -of- the- Whole aMinutes 15 his analysis; with the proposed location of building 17/88 Problem described the reduction in the height building 20 ft. to 18 ft. and the redesign of the northwest corner rof the building to increase the site distance down Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road.. The PG &E pole would be relocated behind the curb, signals at Blauer, Pierce, and Cox would be syncronized. The Committee discussed their various concerns: is too close to the streets at 18 ft. Building #2 be redesigned or relocated to allow landscaping and should around the building. Aesthetically, g and berms developed consistent with the residentialecharacter hofldthe ou area. The Committee was equally divided on th appropriateness of a third driveway Sunnyvale Road. cut on Saratogae ra• � i CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 19, 1988- 8:05 P:M. PLACE: Senior Center, 13655 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, Commissioner Kolstad absent 12. SD -87 -019 Saratoga Partners, .12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., request for tentative subdivision approval for a 12 lot subdivision of a 2.7 acre parcel to accommodate 10 townhomes and a common area lot, and a 1.29 acre retail parcel in the C -N zoning.district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, April 13, 1988. The Puhlic T-icarinp was opened at 8:08 P.M. The City Attorney reviewed the Application and the history of this property. The Planning Director and Planner Calkins provided further information on the Application. Mr. Norm Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the property and presented aproject overview - Noted the difficulty of separating the three Applications - Design proposed was quite consistent with the.City's-original request in thc�salc contract - Reviewed site access alternatives and noted that both portions wercImpacted by the Creek - Landscaping Plan had been upgraded from.thatoriginally seen by the Commission - Types of retail tenants sought were discussed; projections made on townhouse - owners - Asked that the Tentative Map not be approved -prior to approval of the following Items Consensus reached by the Commission that all three Applications would be heard concurrently. 13. DR -87 -123 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a 4,7.16 sq. ft. and a 10.275 sq. ft. retail building on .a 1.29 acre parcel in the C- N,zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. In addition, design review approval of the proposed sign program is also requested. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. UP -87 -147 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., request for use permit DR -87 -124 and design.reviewapprovals of plans to construct ten (10) townhouse units in a C -N (neighborhood commercial) zone district. A Nceative Declaration has been prepared for this:project. Planning Director Hsia presented the Reports-to the Planning Commission for Items 13 and 14 Mr. Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, presented photographs and commented as follows: - Noted the constraints of both portions of the parcel, namely, narrowness of land available - Cited efforts to keep the proposed heights as low as possible while,maintaining a roof line - 'Had discussed the project with neighbors; noted their concerns- regarding privacy and view - • Noted: attempts; to design a project that would be a good neighbor to existing home owncrs by maintaining required setbacks and limiting height However, the units were two -story; it was impossible to place one -story units on -site Balconies on units 1 -4 had been eliminated per Staffs suggestion; he asked' for further consideration of this situation by the Commission Balconies were off the master bedroom- -not the sort of place where social, party activities would occur, yet such would bean amenity to the units Gaps in the existing trees on the property line would be addressed in a landscaping plan Unit 5 side bedroom window (east side) was at a'5 ft. 2 in. height per Staff request; he noted density of trees, distance from adjacent property and asked for review of this issue PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 APRIL 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Kanti Khokhani, 20391 Wolcott Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Some neighbors present atthe April 13th Meeting could not attend this hearing - Noted concern that proposed project would block their views - Excessive bulk - -all townhouse unitsswere two -story in.height - Noted the resulting privacy impacts from the proposed design Ms. Khokhani confirmed that.such was the case. Ms. Dee Fulghume, 20502 Wardell Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Primarily concerned about existing traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale, Wardell/Cox intersection - Barton- Aschman Traffic Study did not consider the possibility of no.interchange in Saratoga for Route 85; such would considerably impact Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. - Cited the bicycle/automobile.accidents on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Cox Ave. interchange - Retail/commercial Building, #2 appeared large and was only a limited distance from comer - Noted.safety hazards due to proposed placement of the.retail/commercial building - Cited considerable traffic impacts from previous improvements on-Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. - Questioned what would happen if access to the adjacent southerly property were closed off - Asked that safety, hours of operation and uses be considered; opposed alcohol uses on site The City Attorney suggesting recording a mutual access/parking easement of the Applicant's property with the southerly property. Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Rd.,.Saratoga, commented as follows: - Increased traffic on Pierce Rd. resulted in.difficult left hand turns onto Cox. Ave. - Suggested design altematives to relieve traffic hazards; visibility impairments noted Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12815 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited existing traffic impacts and noted that such would worsen - Heard complaints that houses had become devalued after approval of this development - Cited street and culvert measurements and noted the need for bicycle /pedestrian lanes - Asked that safety factors to be taken into consideration - Existing utility pole would have to be moved back from- the.comer - Asked if a stacking lane on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd./Pierce Rd. would be installed - Noted an apparent lack of air vents in the basement and lack of bridging:every 10 ft. - Noted the parking easement on the Santa Clara Water District easement - Questioned the lack of pedestrian access from residential to commercial portion of the site Mr. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited existing traffic problems - Questioned uses, hours of operation of the retail/commercial portion of the site - Concurred that the comer, building was too close to Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Cox intersection Mr. Khokhani suggested consideration of reversing the,townhouses and the swimming pool. Mr. Bill Hershman, Sam, toga Partners, addressed the above issues as follows: - Confirmed that a MR. dedication, street widening and improvements would be done - Bridge across the culvert would be widened - Reviewed the retail/commercial.building setbacks and the relocation of the utility pole - Sharpness. of the turn at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. /Cox Ave. would be eased - A pedestrian bridge was tieing designed and would be installed per Conditions of Approval - Cal Trans discussed closure of the left hand turn lane at Argonaut Shopping Center with the Applicants; however, after an independent study they concluded thaysuch was not needed - Cal Trans did not disapprove of the proposed driveway access; Applicants were caught between City and Cal Trans requirements to show approval from both parties - Water District had approved the easement shown on exhibits presented The District was favorable to having the easement paved and used for parking Commissioner Siegfried asked that street improvements be staked for the Commission to see. Mr. Jerry Kocir presented information received from Cal Trans regarding a driveway on -site. Ms. Folger asked that a certain tree be protected when the utility pole was relocated. The Public Hearing remained open. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 APRIL 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried asked that suitable exhibits be pre pared. showing road improvements < and both developments to enable the Commission to visualize the overall impact of the project. He noted that he had substantial problems with the corner retail /commercial building and the proposed size and impact of the townhouses; Chairwoman Guch concurred. Mr. Hulberg commented as- follows: - Location of the comer building was primarily determined by site constraints and regulations - Concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that this comer was heavily travelled and impacts on visibility were extremely important; Applicants also wished to address any safety hazards - Townhouses would be designed to standards; Applicants wished to workwith neighbors BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-87-019,123,124 AND UP -87 -017 TO MAY 25, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION HELD ON MAY 17, 1988. Passed 5 -0. Commissioner Burger commented as follows: - Major concern was the proposed access off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd; she was not favor- able to another access atthis location and cited provisions made for the adjacent property - Retail Building #2: wished to see exact measurements of distance from the property lines - Plans showed the corner building too close to the property lines and too high - Both setbacks and height of Building #2 would have to be reviewed; furthermore, it may be necessary to reduce the amount of retail space `- - Uses would have to be conditioned;.particularly restaurant-use and serving of alcohol Commissioner Harris commented as follows: - Concurred with Commissioner Burger's comments - Suggested consideration of reversing the two retail buildings to address concerns raised - Suggested townhouses 3, 4 be reversed to eliminate a "walled" impact neighbors would see - Changing the configuration of the pool to break up the lengthy facade of townhouses - Cited concerns regarding massiveness of the proposed project to the south - Setback of Unit 5 appeared close; asked that plans show the project - Noted concern that the project as a whole would compound impacts - Noted concern regarding the stacking of cars at Cox Ave. to Pierce Rd. traffic light Commissioner. Siegfried commented as follows:. - Added a request that exhibits prepared by the Applicants show access/ entrances to the project both on Cox Ave. and Saratoga- S.unnyvale.Rd. - Noted concern of impacts of townhouse buildings 1, 2, 3, ,and 4 for neighbors.to the rear - Suggested altemative configurations for these townhouse units be used Commissioner Tucker concurred with the above and added her concerns regarding site access. Chairwoman Guch commented as follows: - Would not approve townhouses at a25:ft. height, especially since this was a cornerlocation - Noted the impacts resulting from the height, bulk proposed. and severity of rear- design; adjacent residents in one -story homes•would be impacted by'such a project - Suggested reconfiguration of the units - However, the comer unit seemed acceptable and landscaping would screen the unit - Suggested relocation of the pool which would provide visual space for rear neighbors - Had more concems of the proposed townhouse development than the commercial site With respect to the retail/commercial building on the comer; there was heavy traffic and there was no way to mitigate the impact of the building Landscaping ofthis building was limited•due to.lines of sighrfor traffic, pedestrians % 1 's34M The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully sub tt Carol A. Probst - Caughey REPORT TO PLANi2I1L, G COP -V4IS S I ON FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: April 13., 1988 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATI'ON: SD -87 -0.19; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (SE corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave.) APPLICANT: Saratoga Partners APN: 393 -01 -001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Section 14- 20.070, the applicant requests tentative map approval for a 12 -lot subdivision of a 2.7 acre parcel (i.e. City owned property) in the C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district. The proposed subdivision includes a 1.3 acre parcel located on the westerly side of the creek, adjacent to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd-., and 10- townhouse parcels and a "common area" parcel (1.4 acres total) located on the easterly side of the creek fronting on Cox Ave. ISSUES: The proposed subdivision is Plan and zoning code requirements, and proposed types and densities of environmental impacts are anticipated, report, the project will not create any STAFF RECOMMENDATION: consistent with the General the site is suitable for the development.' No adverse and according to the traffic adverse impacts on traffic. 1. Approve the Negative Declaration 2. Approve SD -87 -019 PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 10/30/87. SD -87 -019 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 3/30/99 and direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration and Initial Study 2. Resolution SD -87 -019 3. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 4. Traffic Study 5. Exhibit C, Plans RC /rc RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -019 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory. Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval or subdivisions of 12 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -019 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated. April 1.3, 1988 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set.forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 25th day of September, 1987 and is marked Exhibit G in the hereinabove referred to file, be and the-same is hereby-conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 13th day of April, 1988, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADVISORY AGENCY By: Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission SD -87 -019; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. (SE corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave. Exhibit A 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter .14 of the.City Code, including without limitation of the submission of a Tract Map, payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of the tentative approval, submission of engineered improvement plans for all street work and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations applicable flood control regulations and requirements of the Saratoga Fire District. Reference is hereby made to such Ordinance further particulars. Specific Conditions - Engineering Department 3. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Map approval. 4. Submit "Final Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required fees. 5. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. half - street on Cox Ave. 6. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements as required. 7. Improve Cox Ave. to City Standards,, including the following: 1. Designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and face of curb. 2. P. C. concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk (V -24) 3. Underground existing overhead utilities 8. Widen Cox Ave. bridge over Rodeo Creek on the,southerly side of Cox Ave. to provide 20 feet between the centerline and face of curb, and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk. 9. Improve Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to City standards, including the following: a.. Widen Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at easterly side approximately four feet and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk for the SD -87 -019; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (SE corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave. entire length of the site along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. b. Underground existing overhead utilities. 10. Construct. storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer including constructing storm drains with outfalls to Rodeo Creek. 11. Install traffic signal system at the intersection of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Pierce Rd. to Caltran standards. 12. Construct standard driveway approaches. 1.3. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 14. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 15. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 16. Obtain encroachment permit from Caltrans for work to be done within State right -of -way. 17. Engineered improvement plans required for: a. Street improvements b. Storm drain construction 18. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 19. Upon satisfaction of all conditions of tentative subdivision approval, either through performance thereof or the execution by applicant of City's standard form of improvement agreement and the posting of security satisfactory to City to assure performance thereunder, but in no event later than six (6) months after the date of tentative approval, applicant shall file an application for final building site or subdivision approval. 20. Pay the cost of adjusting utilities, signals, etc. to accomplish the improvements described in Condition #'s 7, 8, 9 and 11. 21. Within sixty (60) days after the granting by City of final map— approval, applicant shall file complete applications for such grading and building permits as required to be issued by City for construction of the Project. SD -87 -019; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (SE corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave.) Specific Conditions _ Santa Clara Valley Water District 22. An easement for flood control purposes shall be transferred to the SCVWD per that agency's specifications. A plat and description of the proposed easement shall be submitted to and approved by SCVWD. 23. Ingress- egress easements shall be transferred to SCVWD over the driveway in the commercial area to enable the district to access the proposed easement. All paving should be designed for H -20 loading. 24. An easily removable guardrail shall be installed between the commercial parking area and the creek. A curb should be installed five feet back from the guardrail to prevent damage to the guardrail. 25. All existing trees in the proposed easement shall remain. 26. There should be no overbank drainage from the proposed development to the creek. The site's drainage should be incorporated into an existing storm drainage system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, it should be designed in accordance with SCVWD standards. 27. In accordance with District Ordinance 75 -6, the owner should show any existing wells on the plans. The wells• should be - .properly registered with SCVWD and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. 28. Install a fence along the easterly side of the SCVWD easement 18 ft. back from the top of bank to separate the town houses and pool from the creek. Specific Conditions - Saratoga Fire District 29. Developer shall install two fire hydrants that meets the Fire District's specifications. The hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. Specific Conditions - Caltrans 30. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work within the State right -of -way. Specific Conditions - Building Department 31. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, applicant shall submit the following for review and approval: a. Geotechnical report by licensed professional including details' on soils and foundation; SD -87 -019; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (SE corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue) b. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills, cross- sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or 'R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 4. Erosion control measures 5. Standard information to include title block., plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. 32. A sewer district permit is required prior to issuance of building permits. 33.. The applicant shall submit C.C.& R.'s for the townhomes to include the following.: 1. Maintenance of all common areas; 2. Prohibition on exterior alterations unless approved by the Planning Department. 3. Prohibition on amending the C.C, & R.'s with consent of the City., These C.C. & R.'s shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to Final Map approval. 34. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way. 35.' Tree removal prohibited unless in compliance with City requirements. 36. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental-entities must be met. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: April 13, 1988 APN: 393 -01 -001 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -87 -019; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Map approval to allow a 12 -lot subdivision APPLICANT: Saratoga Partners PROPERTY OWNER: City of Saratoga OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final map, design review and use permit approvals ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared 11/16/87 ZONING: C -N GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Retail Commercial) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING'LAND USES: South: Vacant (approved for 7- townhomes and 15,400 sq. ft. of retail space; north, east and west; single family homes PARCEL SIZE: 2.7 acres NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION : - level area with creek running through S.E. to N.W. Vegetation is mostly small brush and weeds. A number of large oak trees are located in and along the banks of the creek. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.20 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The projdct does meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. SD -87 -019; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Proposal /Background Pursuant to Chapter 14 and Article 15 -19 of the City Code, the applicant wishes to subdivide a 2.7 acre parcel located at southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. & Cox Ave. Parcel "A ", which fronts on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., is 1.3 acres in total area and is proposed to be developed with two retail buildings (see staff report for DR -87 -123). Parcels "B" through ".L" (1.4 acres total) are accessed from Cox Ave. and are proposed to be developed with 10- townhouse units and a "common area ". The common area parcel,. Parcel-B, is 37,171 sq. ft. in total area,' while the townhouse parcels range in size between 2,114 sq. ft. and 3,048 sq. ft. The property line separating Parcel A from Parcels B through L runs approximately along the center line of the creek. B. Analysis General Plan and Zoning Code Compliance The subject parcel is within "Planning Area E" as described in the City's General Plan. Guidelines for Area E development includes considering allowing the subject site to be developed for ' "commercial or multifamily residential uses ". The applicant's proposal is consistent with the above general plan objective, and meets the design requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. In addition, the.proposed density of the townhouse portion of the project i.e. 7.14 du /ac. is approximately one -half of the maximum general plan density allowed in C -R (Retail Commercial) zone and is similar to the density of the townhouse project to the south. The other concerned agencies and departments have reviewed the plans and have voiced no serious objections. Many of the requirements of the City and the other agencies have already been incorporated into the plan where possible, including such things as widening Cox Avenue, and dedicating approximately 39,000 sq. ft. to the.Santa Clara Valley Water District. The plans also provide for a 6 ft. wide pedestrian walkway.along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. This is being ' required by-the City Engineer to connect to the walkway required as part of the development of the project to the south. Once constructed along the frontage of this parcel and the property to the south, the pedestrian walkway will be.completed from the Village all the way to Prospect Rd. In. conclusion, the proposed subdivision raises no major issues. It is consistent with the City's General Plan and Subdivision and Zoning Codes. Other agencies have recommended conditional approval, and these conditions have been taken into account in preparation of the site plan. As such, staff recommends approval. /I Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. :100 Park Qenter. Plaza, Suite-•5.0 - San Jose, California 95113 -280-6600 September 309 1987.. Mr.' Nor nihn C. Hulberg Gilbeau-Hulbe.rg Associates, Inc. 1520 Plirkmoor Avenue San J086l.0011fornin 05128 : If Diar .'Me.-.Hulberg:-.. Mis letter, provides a traffic impact a ti nalysis for Phase II of. the Sara toga-Sunn�V�16 :':'Retail •. Center. The site-specific traffic impact 'of this project is analyzed conjunction•.with our earlier analysis of Phase I. Primary access is assumed to right turn only driveway on iSa,ratoga-Sunnyvale Road, although vehicles will*.,_dls*6-,'.*bt!-i"-.'.'. �.,;.*..-'..:.."". ' able: to'.u*se'the two Phase I project driveways. This letter de S c,ribes existing,itraf evelst project trip generation,'and project trip distribution, which serve as the the'hnalysis.-*1 EXISTING TRAFFIC Peak hour. turning movement counts were conducted at the four intersections a10nith_d,-;i�,., ea, section of -Sara toga-Sunnyvale Road under study (see Figure 1). The counts.,,Wee6, z- . conducted 'from 4 pm to 6 pm during the week of January 26, 1987. -This.. is: thb afternoon time period when traffic volumes are highest. The morning was not, s t�&d` because the project will have a greater impact during the afternoon. The traffic counts were used to calculate existing "levels of service,". using the t methodology described in Transportation Research Board, Circular 212, Int*er'ir-n;.,7r".-l*i,,,,,,,....,..�i.l.. Materials on Highway Capacity, 1980. Table 1 defines "level of service." Two oP.Ah -"intersections are signalized and two are not. Levels of service are calculatie&.6di", specified ,differently for the two different types of intersections. For signa intersections, levels of service are based on volume-to-capaci-ty ratios and. ca sppcified:Jor the intersection as a whole. For unsignalized intersections, lev service are based on delay and are calculated separately for each ,turning movement. Th e'Saratoiza-Sunnyvale /Cox intersection is operating -at LOS. C,.,and the Sa, r Sunnyvale/Bl ' auer intersection is operating at LOS A (see' Table 2). At - unsignalized intersections, some turning movements experience long delays typically associated with LOS E are 40 seconds and with LOS D 35 second FIGURE 1 ooQ SARATOGA -SUNNY VALl RO It— 10 -1545 t75 --1700 :_:_ :- 710 y so 50 690 SAIOGE 0 'o (ROUNDED TO NEAREST FIVE) FIGURE 1 Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr:- Norman C. Hulberg September 30, 1987 Page 3 tL � i •I TABLE I INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of ' :';•;' ra ...: Avege : Service Interpretation V/C Ratio A, B `: -; ,Uncongested operations; all queues .clear in a Less ' Than .7 : 0'- 22 sec. ;;. single. signal cycle. C. Light congestion; occasional backups on criti- .700 - .799 22. 28 sec._...:..r. cal approaches. D Significant congestion on. critical approaches .800 _..899 28.1.,,.'35 ~sec. =4. but intersection 'functional. 'Cars required to „...,• -.: wait through more than one cycle during short peaks:. No ,long - standing queues formed. E Severe congestion with some long- standing .900 - .999 35.1.'-40`-.6:; queues on critical approaches. Blockage of Intersection may occur if , traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersection(s) upstream of critical approach(es). F Total breakdown, stop- and-go operation. 1.0 And Greater Greater than 40 sec" Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Saratoga- ,Sunnyvale & Cox r.:. all C ' ' ! •, t Saratoga Sunnyvale &Pierce NB LT E SIGNAL WARRANTS .. EB LT E warrants are satisfied. The peak :hour volumes were taken from the January counts, while the four -hour and eight -hour counts were taken from a September study by Roger G. Young, traffic engineer. The U.S. Department '± Federal Highway Administration, has established the system EB AT B -. installed. Some of the warrants are specialized, e.g., school crossings, but the one's-.;.:* that could apply to Pierce Road are as follows: Saratoga - Sunnyvale & Brandywine /Argonaut Entrance NB LT D '. - , >• :.Warrant 6 — Accident experience SB LT C: , Warrant 11 — Peak hour volumes EB LT E ; EB RT A " WB LT E WB RT A Saratoga- Sunnyvale & Blauer all A ill NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound; WB = westbound, LT = left turn, RT = turn. ` right ti r.:. i2) .Level of Service '`" .. •: , .v SIGNAL WARRANTS .. r The existing conditions at Pierce Road were examined to determine whether. signal ,� warrants are satisfied. The peak :hour volumes were taken from the January counts, while the four -hour and eight -hour counts were taken from a September study by Roger G. Young, traffic engineer. The U.S. Department of, Transportation,.". a "}i• Federal Highway Administration, has established the system of eleven signal�� t1warrants,11 which serve as a basis for determining whether a \; signal should !be.,,.,.,,,. -. installed. Some of the warrants are specialized, e.g., school crossings, but the one's-.;.:* that could apply to Pierce Road are as follows: Warrant 1 — Minimum vehicular volume Warrant 2 — Interruption of continuous traffic :.Warrant 6 — Accident experience Warrant 9 — Four. hour volumes Warrant 10 — Peak, hour delay Warrant 11 — Peak hour volumes Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. -Mr. Norman C. Hulberg September 30, 1987 Page 5 All but. one of these involve minimum Road /Sarato a -Bunn vale Road intersection The three are: Warrant 2 — nTPrruption of Volume s, ' and Warran — pea our vo um W traffic volume standards. e. Pierce meets three of these volume - cont es s warrants r: ra fic, Waant 9 =" -hour it 1 for details). . arrant 6 --.accident experience —was checked but not met at this location This warrant applies to locations having five "correctable" accidents during a .twelve month period.. A "correctable" accident is -One that a signal might have prt'vented. The Saratoga- Sunnyvale /Pierce Road intersection has exberienced the fnllrrrar number of accidents: 1983 -6 1984 -.1 1985 - 4 Of The these 12 accidents in four years, only one or two accident experience warrant, therefore, is not met. Because the volume warrants are met, the. city will require installation - of a signal at 'Pierce Road prior to occupancy of Phase I. The following analysis of Phase II assumes the presence of the signal for future scenarios. TRIP" GENERATION Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) research, retail • proiects will generate 40.7 trigs p2r day_per 1-.000 square feet of area. Table 3 ,floor summarizes the--Tr ip generation calculations. The Phase'�f project will generate "613 daily trips, " including 61 trips during the PM :peak hour (4:30 -5:3'0 PM). Both Phases I and "• .II combined will generate 1,240 daily trips, including 124 trips during the afternoon ` hour. peak r TABLE 3`1' ;. TRIP GENERATION Peak Ptak Dnity Hour hour Project Type Size Rate Trips Factor Trips Phasq I Retail 15,400 sq. ft. 40.,7 per 1,000 sq. ft. 627 10% 61;..;,. Phase If Retail 15,050 sq. ft. 40.7 per 1,000 sq. ft. an 10% 61 Total 1,240 .124 Ex k ; SIGNAL WARRANT CEIICK Count Date: ��Zy gs E 1/2.-7/87 Intersection: lja�'a. }0 1 4- Peak' Hour Approach Volumes ...' � 193 ,oso Eighth Highest Hour Approach Volumes Fourth Highest Hour Approach Volumes 1000- ::';', .r'. t.:r;y• 10 IIzS Summary '•;'' ? °' Ma or St J�a ra1°`�a S`� "'^- ��°'��- Minor Street: P i er c,-, Lanes Per. Total Volume- Highest Approach y' A oroach p. Both Approaches Lanes Volume � ,:;�;,,:• .- � � a- 3oz3 }lour %a . s `,... ::,;;:':i• Z580 5 • COMPARISON TO STANDARDS S Volume Standard s Warrant n : Major Street Minor Street Satisfied? ye �T:� i�0Uf 1:2-0 0 x'.70 8,5`= Peru.►,�e. speed ;s �cea�e,r. -4�.a.`.,.!{o .K`1'k'``�,. ....:Yra;i:� + ^d• °'.,;w W ^.':'.:4,''. .., . � .. ,. ,!';:Ati 7i "L�eiT "5�'�ait�;hi.:. .... •.r.k C..':. Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr: Norman `C. Hulber g - ✓': September. 30, 1987 ge 7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The new,`project trips will be distributed to the street system in proportion to direction - and intensity of surrounding development. The assumed peak hour :-distribution pattern is as follows: , Retail To /From North 3096 To /From. South 35% To /From East 20% To /From West 15% _ 100% Figure, 2 shows the resulting g .project trip pattern. it LEVELS OF SERVICE , Service levels for the four intersections under study. were r.elcalculated with' traffic + from the project added to' existing volumes. These scenarios were tested: existing 'plus Phase I, existing plus Phase II, and existing plus both Phases I and II. TabjP 4 Chowl that neither base alone nor both bases to ether would sign -..w.. ..,..__._..�.� �.....�!ava ificarD,�•s im ac o o erations: The de rada:tion level of service at the Saratoga-- Sunnyvale /Cox intersecp.,G,,t S��ie�i�,e C D ou no warran mi ►anon • ?: mea ON -,SITE CIRCULATION .��; <:•;,��1 We reviewed the site plan for Phase II of the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Retail Center conjunction with the .Phase I site plan. We were looking at the adequacy of: driveWay`rt��5; �= locations and on -site traffic flow. The following paragraphs describe our observations:�,rr: �r1: and conclusions._ 'The site plan calls for three driveways on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road — one southern.-end of the project opposite Pierce Road, a second 200 feet north of the first (measured center to center), and a third to serve Phase II 200 feet south of Cox :rbrrl` the standpoint of capacity, only one driveway is necessary for a project of . thi5 §iz3'ti However, having multiple access points avoids congestion at any one eases on -site circulation. e driveway opposite Pierce Road is constrained for queuing space because. restricted lot depth at that point. Zr „!?1ost,, 6Q .feet of storage is available Whi6 i �:�i5, sufficient:.for th R r w,�' -1 e..ex e._ tthat ou Moo e - urning ve icl'es wi ,,yR�� tA i f o Ni Y SAAATOCA- SUNMVV4I:S RO t �-- 111221 H 91191 1111/1 —� - 7UIH 2(201--,* d81 91191 - /171'� 7171 � _ 61t21� 9RIOGE _ w ono u 8 PHASE 1 (PHASES NANO 111 S 1 ; O O I1IZ21 11 122) --► 111221- -► C i W z = � °uu . s L 3 o Ni Y SAAATOCA- SUNMVV4I:S RO t �-- 111221 H 91191 1111/1 —� - 7UIH 2(201--,* d81 91191 - /171'� 7171 � _ 61t21� 9RIOGE _ w ono u 8 PHASE 1 (PHASES NANO 111 Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Norman C. Hulberg r September 30, 1987 . - Page 9 TABLE 4 "' PM PEAK HOUR* LEVELSO F SERVICE WITH PROJECT r. Existing+ - - - Existing g + Existing +; Phase I + -.Intersection Movement(1) Existing LOS`2)- hase I Phase II :.. Phase - ... LOS LOS Saratoga - ,Sunnyvale be Cox all CC C C/D Saratoga- Sunnyvale & Pierce NB LT E B(3'), EB LT E B BBC' ..::.' ::::r.•:_. EB RT Saratoga - Sunnyvale & NB LT D :• - " Brandywine /Argonaut Entrance SB LT C C EB LT E E C E C , =?. EB RT' A A A A WB LT E E E Wr RT A A A A' t„ Saratoga - Sunnyvale & Blauer all A A A ; :A (1) NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, LT = left turn, RT right turn.. (2) ' Level of Service (3) Assumed signalized in future scenarios. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr'.. Norman C. Hulberg September 30, 1987 Page 10 , occasional) y queue up and block t he drive:%ay Therefore the 'other.. wd"Lys.-.,on%,t,.-_. bar a toga-Su nnyvale, Road are desirable to handle the "spillover" right turns 'that.. mighC' v.;,. .'be unable.to use the driveway opposite 'Pierce. The three' driveways would be spaced 200 fek apart and 200 feet from Cox 'Avenue ::., •.-(centerline -.to centerline). , This spacing conforms to Institute -of -Trans portation Engineers.(ITE) guidelines. The dr* flow or create unusual accident poiential. Outbound vehicles' � i hi 7 Te 7=- T u' vis ing-to mrj:ge ay-er into IMM ULI 1UA 'Jeey JUU ietR"bf MstMe"Ilre. nor -trMT—nmost driveway wo`UT`noprovide ..111is distaTfuu.=T7 3`uZgemlle- �Vo�wever, no safety problem would be created. Any driver'.,. anticipating difficulty with the. merge'd6e to traffic volumes on Saratoga Sunnyvale could use either of the other two driveways. Pn=s.ite circulation between Phase I and Phase II of t h2_2,rnit. vt-19�-Xle D -7c �e: parking lots are Conne6led 'I . .. =JD�.f s. The arkin 176—y-o—ut-is eff—icient and logical. CONCLUSIONS .The traffic volume generated by Phase II of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Retail CenterV as proposed, could be'accommodated.on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road' without difficulty. No mitigation 'measures would be necessary, even with both phases of the project . considered together. The site plan is adequate as presented. .We trust this represe'rits a complete description of the impact of your project. Please call if you *need further information.. 4., Sincerely,.,' BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 Gary K. Black Senior Associate 13 6 4. 0 1.0 1 /L/NH/HSR/8 7 2 017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. ...100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 San Jose, California 95113 : 408 = 280 -6600 November 12, 1987 ,. N'� 1 ;� 1987 t Mr. Robert T. Calkins PLAN A.* City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 9507.0 Re: ;.'-'Saratoga Retail Center Traffic . Dear Mr. Calkins: This letter-`res responds to P your request for additional information and clarification •• '• �' regarding the traffic impact of the Sa_ratoga Retail Center. We will address each of your points in order, as follows: You asked for a traffic analysis of the residential portion of the project. The ten townhouses will generate 80 daily one -way trips, using the trip generation rate of eight trips per unit recommended by the Saratoga City Engineer. Assuming a ten percent peak hour factor, we can expect eight peak hour trips associated with the townhouses. These trips will result in an. imperceptible 'increase in traffic on Cox Avenue. We conclude that the Saratoga4unnyvale /Cox intersection will also be unaffected by the townhouses. 2. You asked .about apparent inconsistencies between the traffic report for Phase I " of the retail center (the ro ert p p y immediately south) and Phase H. Our trafff c. report dated 9/15/86 stated that level of service at the Sara toga-Sunnyvale/ Co intersection would degrade to LOS "D" (V /C = 0.81) with both parcels developed.'.' This conclusion was based on an assumed total t 400 fo square footage of 45 r boh: q g 7 projects together (see 9/15/AA letter pales 1 and 2). Our latest analysis,. dated_;. 9- /30/87, assumed a smaller total project size (30,450 square feet) and showed °•. • ::degradation.to LOS IIC /D" (V /C = 0.80). ;•:;�;:- ,;K�r ><:,�r :r = °it< h: You also questioned our earlier statement that there 'is insufficien.t'room -on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road for three driveways (2/16/87 letter) in view oui�. !. recent conclusion that a third driveway would not disrupt traffic flow and would' conform to ITE guidelines (9/30/87 letter). In our analysis of Phase' I.of. this retail project, we were working under the assumption that one driveway would be; opposite Pierce Road, and a second driveway would be on the property`Jine? between the two parcels. This would leave insufficient space for al:third driveway. Since that time, the second driveway has been moved south such_'that: •a•• third driveway would fit and still maintain 200 feet separation (meil ired< centerline to centerline). Regarding the need for a driveway 300 feet away from Cox to allow vehicles to merge into the left -turn lane at Wardell, we did. not;. u- rl '>tZ~iL':ti.l :• CIiLae Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robert T. Calkins November 12, 1987 Page 2: intend to state that all driveways need to maintain this distance but that one driveway be available at this distance for the drivers that may want to make this maneuver. This was stated in- our 9%30/87 letter as follows: "Outbound vehicles wishing to merge over into the left -turn lane at Cox need 300 feet:of. distance. The northernmost driveway would not provide this distance. In our judgement, however, no safety problem would be created. Any driver anticipating difficulty with the merge due to traffic volumes on Saratoga -` Sunnyvale could use either of the other two driveways." 3•' You ' asked that we suggest some mitigation measures that would maintain LOS "C" at the Saratoga - Sunnyvale /Cox intersection. In response to your request we carefully reanalyzed our traffic counts, and we conducted further. . field observations of the intersection during peak hours. Unfortunately, we have ' '. • • . '> discovered no- improvement opportunities short of major reconstruction. Hea traffic on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road is the cause for traffic delays at this location. The only improvement that would make a significant change to • the LOS would be widening Saratoga - Sunnyvale `Road to six lanes, which we judged to'- be an impractical solution. With regard to the impact of the project, please note that the increase in traffic ..• . • .:�;;,r at the Saratoga- Sunnyvale /Cox intersection would be only thirteen additional critical movements (a 1% increase). This increase would be -imperceptible to the - observer or motorist on the street, which is the basis -for our conclusion that no •- mitigation measures should be undertaken. Under present conditions the Intersection is operating near the top of the LOS "C" range, which is why a small Increase in traffic would result in a borderline C/D designation. The dividing'" ` . line between the LOS designations is arbitrary and is not reflected in actual .traffic conditions on the street for incremental changes. That is, a high LOS "C" �� ,►,� may:' condition (V /C = 0.79) does not look much different than a low LOS "D" condition' (V /C = 0.81). Therefore, we make our determination of whether. "mitigation ',: ` measures are called for based on the percentage increase in critical volume � ��Y =• rather than on other criteria such as whether a LOS threshold is crossed. :" " Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robert T. Calkins November 12, IM Page 3 We believe -that we have answered your questions completely; however, we glad to provide any further clarification would be'r. you request. Sincerely,'.,'..'.'. 13ARTON-*ASCHMAN ASSOCIATE, INC. f 7 Gary K. Black Senior Associate GKB:csn cc: Norm Hulberg Bill Hirschman 13640161/L'/RC/87-001 ft a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated 7/ , 1987, by and between THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ( "City "), and NORMAN C., HULBERG, KENNETH W. GILBEAU and WILLIAM F. HIR.SCHMAN ( "Developers "), is made with reference to the following facts: A. City is the owner of certain real property located at the southeast corner of Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue, consisting of approximately 2.7 acres of unimproved land identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 3'91 -03 -272 ( "the Property "). B. City furnished a Request For Proposals dated , 1987 (the "RFP ") to all persons expressing an interest in acquiring and devel ing the Property. In response thereto, Developers submitted a Proposal dated April 30, 1987, as revised on June 5, 1987 and June 12, 1987. Such Proposal was conditionally accepted by City, subject to certain modifications as set forth in letters from City to Developers dated June 18, 1987 and June 25, 1987, which modifications were accepted by Developers on June 30, 1987. As required under Paragraph VII (C) of the RFP, Developers have delivered to City and City hereby acknowledges receipt of a good faith deposit in the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). C. Pursuant to Paragraph VII (B) of the RFP, the parties desire to execute this Agreement to confirm the terms and conditions for sale of the Property to Developers and the construction thereon of a residential and commercial development, in accordance with the modified Proposal and the provisions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I SALE OF PROPERTY 1.01 Purchase Price. City hereby agrees to sell and Developers hereby agree' to purchase the Property for a total purchase price of One Million Six Hundred Thirty t -1- Thousand Dollars ($1,630,000.00). The entire purchase price shall be paid to City, in cash, at close of escrow. The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the purchase price shall be allocated as follows: (a) Nine Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars .($930,000.00) toward acquisition of the western portion of the Property located between Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road and Rodeo Creek (hereinafter referred to as the "Commercial Portion"); and (b) Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000.00) toward acquisition of the eastern portion of the Property located between Rodeo Creek and the east property line (hereinafter referred to as the "Residential Portion"). 1.02 Legal Title. Legal title to the Property shall be conveyed by City to Developers by grant deed, free and clear of all liens, claims or encumbrances except for easements and restrictions of record as shown on the Preliminary Title Report issued by Santa Clara County Title Company, dated June 22, 1983, identified as Order No. 303044, a copy .of which has been furnished to and approved by Developers. Prior to close of escrow, Developers shall deliver written instructions to City and the Escrow Agent as to the manner in which they desire to hold legal title. If City is unable to convey a marketable title by close of escrow, subject only to the exceptions described herein, Developers may,, at their option, terminate this Agreement by written notice to City, in which event all funds and documents shall be returned to the party depositing the same and both City and Developers shall be released from any further obligation or liability hereunder. 1.03 Title Insurance. At the request of Developers, City_ shall provide to Developers a standard C.L.T.A. owners policy of title insurance, insuring legal title to the Property in Developers, subject to the exceptions described in Section 1.02 of this Agreement. The cost of such title insurance policy shall be paid by Developers. 1.04 Condition of Property. Developers acknowledge that they are purchasing the Property "AS IS," in its present condition, and that City has made no representations or warranties concerning the physical condition of the Property or its fitness for the intended use and development by Developers. -2- 1.05 Possession. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Developers at close of escrow; provided, however, that prior to the close of escrow, Developers and their authorized agents shall have the right of access to the Property for the purpose of making,surveys, soil tests, engineering studies, and obtaining such other information as Developers may reasonably require in connection with their proposed development of the Property. Developers ,agree to repair any damage to the Property caused by their activities conducted thereon and Developers further agree to indemnify and hold City, its officers, officials, employees and commissions harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, costs or expenses, including the expense of defending any claim, demand or cause of action brought against. City, or any of its, officers, officials, employees or commissions, arising out of or in any manner relating to such investigative, planning and development work performed upon the Property by or on behalf of Developers prior to close of escrow. Developers shall keep the Property free and clear of all mechanics liens or charges pertaining to such work. 1.06 Escrow. Agent. The 'parties hereby designate Santa Clara County Title Company as escrow agent for the sale transaction, City and Developers shall each execute and deliver to said escrow agent such instructions as may be necessary or appropriate to consummate the sale transaction consistent with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 1.07 Closing Costs. Transfer taxes, if any, and all escrow fees, recording fees, document preparation fees, notary fees and other closing expenses of any kind shall be paid by Developers.._ 1.08 Close of*Escrow. Close of escrow and recordation of the Grant. Deed shall occur on the day of issuance by City to Developers of building permits for construction of the residential and commercial project described in Article H of this Agreement. City shall furnish written notice to Developers of its intention to issue such permits at least ten (10) days prior to the date of issuance; unless such notice is waived by Developers. ARTICLE H DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY 2.01 Description of Project. Subject to the granting of all approvals and permits as may be required by City and any other governmental agencies having -3- jurisdiction, and compliance by Developers with, all conditions as may be set forth therein, Developers agree to construct the improvements upon the Property as generally shown on the site plan attached hereto as .Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Project "), and more particularly described as follows: (a) Upon the Commercial Portion of the Property, a retail commercial development consisting of two single story buildings having a total floor area of not more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, one such building to have a floor area of approximately four thousand five hundred (4,500) square feet, and the second building to have a .floor area of approximately • ten thousand five hundred (10,500) square feet. (b) Upon the Residential Portion of the Property, a multi - family residential development consisting of five two -story buildings containing ten townhouses having a combined floor :area of not more than twenty -five thousand (25,000) square feet, including garages, together with a swimming pool. The parties expressly acknowledge that the improvements described above and as shown on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit. "A," together with such other drawings and descriptions of the Project submitted to City as part. of Developers' Proposal in response to the RFP, represent a preliminary conceptual plan only and are subject to change during the course of processing Developers' applications for the approvals listed in Section 2.02 of this Agreement. 2.02 Applications for ApprovaL The following applications shall. be submitted by Developers to City within the times stipulated herein. Each application shall be complete with respect to the documents and 'information required by City •in connection therewith, and shall be accompanied by the payment of all fees and charges which are then due and payable to City in accordance with City's .Fee Schedule in force as of the date the application is filed. (a) Within sixty (60) days after this Agreement is executed, Developers shall file applications for the following approvals, to be reviewed and processed concurrently with each other: —4- (1) At the option of Developers, either of the following applications shall be submitted pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code: (i) Application for tentative building site approval for development of the Property as a single site; or Application for tentative subdivision approval for division of the Property into two (2) parcels consisting of the Commercial Portion and the Residential Portion. (2) Application for a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of City's Zoning. Ordinance, to allow the construction of multi - family dwellings within a C -N zoning district. (3) Application for design review approval pursuant to Article 15 -46 of City's Zoning Ordinance, relating to both the commercial structures and the residential structures to be constructed as part of the Project.. (b) Upon satisfaction of all conditions of tentative building site or subdivision approval, either through performance thereof or the execution by Developers of City's standard form of improvement agreement and the posting of security satisfactory to City to assure performance thereunder, but in no event later than six (6) months after the date of tentative approval, Developers shall file, an application for final building site or subdivision approval. No such final approval shall be granted unless Developers have obtained the use permit and design review approvals referred to in Subparagraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this Section. If final approval is granted, the parcel map or subdivision map shall be held by City and recorded at close of the sale escrow. (c) Within sixty (60) days after the granting by City of final building site' or subdivision approval, Developers shall file complete applications for such grading and - -�. building permits as required to be issued by City for construction of the Project. (d) Concurrent with the applications for approvals and permits to be obtained from City as referred to above, Developers shall also obtain such approvals and -5- permits as may be required from other governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, including, but not limited to, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Caltrans. 2.03 Processing and Approval of Applications. City shall process the applications referred to in Section 2.02 in accordance with the subdivision, zoning and building regulations pertaining thereto and nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver, relinquishment or abrogation of any powers or discretionary authority exercisable by City under such regulations and any applicable State laws. City expressly reserves the -right to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of any such approval or permit and the right to modify any aspect of the Project or to - deny any application filed by Developers, subject, however, to Developers' right to terminate this Agreement under Section 3.04 hereof. 2.04 Compliance with Development Standards. The Project shall fully comply with all development standards in force as of the time the applications for approval thereof are filed with City. Developers agree that no exceptions to the design or improvement standards set forth in City's Subdivision Ordinance and no variances from the regulations set forth in City's Zoning Ordinance will be requested in connection with the Project. 2.05 Dedications and Public Improvements. The dedications and public improvements required by City and other governmental agencies for approval of the Project will be determined during the processing of the applications listed in Section .2.02 above. Without in any manner limiting the authority of the City or any other governmental agency to require such dedications and public improvements, City hereby represents that the following exactions are likely to be required and Developers hereby acknowledge and accept the same: (a) Dedication of easement covering the Rodeo Creek area to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. (b) Widen Cox Avenue on the southerly side to provide for 20 feet between centerline and face of curb, and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk for the entire length of the Property along Cox Avenue. Dedicate 30 foot half street. -6- REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Calkins DATE: June 8, 1988 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -87 -124, UP -87 -017; 12902 Saratoga -Sunny le- Rd- APPLICANT /OWNER: Saratoga Partners/ City of Saratoga APN :393 -01 -001 Q 1 '1721 �- I � 1 "� ��y 12699 12-70 f-- 386-36- .�� 3!16-36 E cn C2) C3� V5 og 77 ('f1� x2115 (11) r.. (6) 13 366 -13 366 -13 -7 Z 3 7 V 117 3) 386 -36 14 ✓ 12-722 20 1 73 V r 386- 3, -O2 3$, 7.3 5 986-36 - 15 - 8 2=0501 Iy1 153 [9) /2-15 C8 2 ) 5 (A) 503 -16 -98 1'L 3 2o4or5 127,9 0 20378 1�( i 3BL-36 -17 39b -3b- fb 39a -3v 396• -% 2D542 903 -18- ^, of 49 -18- so3-r8 -95 20502 % 2o395 }: c -J 503 -/8-89 209760 �J ^ O 39/ o3•z.53 V 12751 >�1 0. � x.. 391- 03 3 391 -0? 0 27 C ) J 2 Sg 219 0) 20391 2 O 3710 3 391 03- 39/-03- f27 ?1 4) 257 39/-0: g I 20385 Z03go 22< 391-03- 3'91!,N Z55 256 1279: 9-✓8 391 -0' 87 391 - 03-277 Cla`z . C195J (19 4-) 20397 2037 C1 I 391- 03.282 9 20 391 -og 3oj1_o 12 3_ 391 03- 391- 142 1.41 14o 5o3-1B -� - IZ795 (19 2941 s53-1 1.2851 C19B> 1 503 -/g 391-01-28/ 991-03- 2030 2b: og !43 341-03- 391 - 12840 _ 144 M 303-19-63 - 12861 U (3Z) 12848 391-03 -175 128-70 • C. 503 -19 391 -03 20 C2� ! 174• 128 391 15 z 835 12879 12948 39f 03 -176 1 18 391- 03 =271 Now 1289 7 /3) ' - 091 -o'3 -1:77 C3 12921114) 20360 Q` 39P-o3° i (13) 503-/9- Q �/J 391-03-270 f 2915(4) 1291 49 ri 12920 391- o3-I�g C4U PLANNER'S WORKSHEET Plan ,Check Vi.cinity /locator map included ,/Dimensions shown on plot plan djacent structures _Directional arrow Trees labelled Plans reflect field conditions Heights shown on cross sections —7-Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans Natural and finished grade on cross sections Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations I /Roof pitch shown —7All sheets included in submittal. with required reductions —7colors submitted Staff ,✓ Reports Conditions from other agencies /department correct. —7Consistent figures throughout report 7History files examined —7C-orrec-t address & application number on all pages of the report -✓ Description consistent with advertisement Plans labelled V✓ Order of attachment consistent with list -7 All attachments included Typographical errors corrected Dates on the resolutions correct A :checklist File Nos. UP -87 -017, DR -87 -124 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 8/21/87 Application complete: 10/26/87 Notice published: 3/30/88 Mailing completed: 3/31/88 Posting completed: 3/17/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Sections 15- 55.070, 15- 19.030(8) and 15- 46.040,.. the applicant is requesting use permit and design review approvals of plans to construct 10 townhouse units on a 1.4 acre parcel in the C -N zone district. In connection with the above use permit request, the following modifications to the CN zone` district development standards are requested: 1. Modify the height limit to allow the townhomes to be 25.5 ft. high where 20 ft. is permitted in the CN district. 2. Modify the side yard setback to 12 ft. for Unit #8a, to 25 ft. for Unit #(9b, and to 30 ft. for Unit #10b where a 36 ft. setback is required.. This item was continued from the 4/19/88 regular adjourned. Planning Commission meeting and the May 17, 1988 Committe -of- the - Whole meeting.. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant bas revised the plans in response to the Planning Commission's concerns. The proposed location of the townhomes is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the CN zone district. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed density is well below the maximum density permitted by the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve both applications by.adopting Resolutions UP -87 -017 and DR- 87-124. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions UP -87 -017 and DR -87 -124 3. C.O.W. report dated 5/17/88 4. Planning Commission minutes dated meeting) 5. Report to Planning Commission dated 6. Exhibit "A," Plans BC /kah 1 4/19/88 (regular adjourned 4/13/88 UP -87 -017, DR -87 -124, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave. STAFF ANALYSIS T ZONING: CN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDM (Planned Development) PARCEL SIZE: 1.4 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2% GRADING REQUIRED: Grading has been completed in accordance with the plan approved by the Planning Commission on 10/19/87. MATERIALS & COLORS-PROPOSED, :. Horizontal lap cedar wood siding with cedar shake roofs. SITE COVERAGE: HEIGHT• SIZE OF STRUCTURE: PROPOSAL 22% (13,662 sq. ft.) 1st Floor: 2nd. Floor: TOTAL: Ist Floor: 2nd" Floor: TOTAL: 25,.5 ft. Unit A 1,346 sq. ft. 1.,127 sq. ft. 2,473 sq. ft. Unit B' 1,037 sq, ft. 1,,148 sq. ft. 2,185 sq. ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 60% 20 ft. TOTAL: 25,000 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 20 ft. Front: 15 ft. Rear: 18 ft. Rear: 0 ft. Right Side: 13 -50 ft. Right Sider 0 ft. Left Side: 12 -31.5 ft. Left Sider 36 ft.. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting use permit and design review approvals to construct 10 townhouse units on a 1.4 acre lot in the CN zone district. The subject lot is located approximately 200 ft. east of the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue intersection, and is characterized by level topography. Existing single famiy homes exist to the east of the project 2 UP -87 -017, DR -87 -124, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue site and a 7 -unit townhouse project is currently under construction on the property to the south.. The'land across the creek to the west of the applicant's lot is currently vacant; however, a proposal to construct two retail buildings on that property is on tonight's agenda. The subject applications were originally discussed at the 4/19/88 regular adjourned Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission reached a concensus on the following concerns: * townhous_e units along the.left side property line created a "wall" and were massive in appearance when viewed from the rear yards of properties located on Wolcot Way. * The proposed height of the townhouse units was not appropriate, particularly since the neighborhood is characterized by single story homes. * The proposed exterior materials, i.e. stucco and stone, added to the perceived bulk of the units. • Balconies and second story windows of the units adjacent to the left side property line would have a adverse impact on privacy. • The number of guest parking spaces should be increased. * The density of the project may not be appropriate given the physical constraints of the site, i.e. narrow parcel, creek etc. At the 5/17/88 Committee -of- the - Whole (C.O.W.) meeting, the applicant presented revised plans, which included a redesign of the architectural style of the units. Specifically, the applicant relocated one of the buildings along the left side property to the creekside of the site and replaced it with the pool /spa area. In addition, the exterior materials of the units were now horizontal 'lap cedar siding instead of stucco and stone:, and the roof design was changed from a gable to a- hip. Lastly, the setback for Unit #8a was increased from 11 ft. to 12 ft. There were no changes in the height, number of guest parking spaces and balconies proposed at the C.O.W. meeting. The Commissioners complimented the applicant and architect on the architectual design changes but there was a general consensus on the following points: * Balconies on Units 9 and 10 must be eliminated to protect the privacy of existing residents to the east. * The project needed additional guest parking spaces. 3 UP -87 -017, DR -87 -124, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue * Unit #8a should be reduced in height or possibly eliminated. * Proposed landscaping along the left side property line should address the privacy of the neighbors and provide a screen between properties. The project may be too dense. The final plans submitted by the applicant are similar to those presented at the C.O.W. meeting with the following minor changes: * The applicant has eliminated the balconies on Unit #'s 9 and 10. * The balcony on Unit #8 has been relocated so it now faces to the south instead of to the east. * One more guest parking spaces has been added. A total of 7 guest parking spaces are proposed. B. Recommendation In staff's opinion, the proposed revisions to the plans have adequately addressed bulk, privacy, view and compatibility concerns. The revised architectural style and change in exterior materials will help reduce the perceived bulk of the units, and 'help them blend in with the existing neighborhood. By eliminating or relocating second story balconies and proposing landscaping along the left side property line, the privacy .of the adjacent property owners will not be adversely impacted. Existing views will be preserved by the proposed landscaping, the height of the units, and the proposed setbacks along the easterly property line. Consequently, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve both applications. All of the required use permit findings to allow a multi- family use in the CN zone district and to modify the height and side yard setbacks can be made. In addition, all of the multi - family design review criteria have been satisfied. 4 Committee -of- the -Whole Report 5/17/88 C•, D•, and E, - DR -87 -019, DR -87 -123, DR -87 -124, UP -87 -147, - Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale from 4/13/88).. _ - - (Continued Planner- Caldwell reviewed the issues of concern expressed by the Commission: third access onto. Saratoga- Synnyvale Road, height and location of the corner retail building, configuration and height of the townhomes and location of the swimming pool. Townhomes Norm Hulberg, applicant, presented his revised plans and introduced the• new architect for the townhomes, :Colin Vessell, and -the landscape architect, Mike Dillon. The townhomes were relocated, exterior materials revised from Stucco to horizontal wood and the roof changed from.a gable to hip. The southern unit was 12 ft. instead of 11 ft. from the east property line. The total square footage was the same and guest parking remained at 6 spaces. The balcony on the second story, 5 ft. 6 in. width, places the balcony approximately 7 ft. from the property line. The fence along the:east will remain. The neighbors commented that they.wante'd heavy vegetation along the eastern property line to give them privacy and soften the impact of the townhouses. Comments from the Committee included: 1. 'Balconies along the rear elevations towards the eastern property line should be eliminated. 2. More guest parking should be provided. 3. Project was too dense. 4. Unit at the south should be.reudced in height or eliminated. 5. Hours of the pool and spa should be restricted in the CC &R's... 6. Lighting plan should be prepared and submitted to the Commission for approval. 7. Landscaping along the eastern property line should address the privacy of the neighbors and provide a screen between properties. t Mr. Hulberg stated that he,cannot reduce the height. He cannot build less than 10 units without renegotiating the price with Council. Buildings Cary "lac?, traffic engineer, described the line of s aht C.O.W. Report , (con It) distance to the south; he did not consider any earthen mound or landscaping along the proposed building #2 at the corner Of Cox Avenue and 'Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road in his analysis; he saw no Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes 5/17/88 problem with the proposed location of building #2. The developers described the reduction in the height of the building from 20 ft. to 18 ft. and the redesign of the northwest corner of the building to increase the site distance down Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The PG &E pole would be relocated behind the curb, signals. at Blauer, Pierce, and Cox would be syncronized. The Committee discussed their various concerns: Building #2 is too close to the streets at 18 ft. in height.., and should be redesigned or relocated to allow landscaping and berms around the building. Aesthetically, the corner should be developed consistent with the residential character of the area. The Committee was equally divided on the appropriateness of a third driveway cut on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 19, 1988 - 8:05 P.M. PLACE: Senior Center, 13655 Fruitvale Avenue,: Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, Commissioner Kolstad absent: 12. SD -87 -019 Saratoga Partners, .12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., request.for tentative subdivision approval for a 12 lot subdivision of a 2.7 acre parcel to accommodate" 10 townhomes and a common area lot, and a 1.29 acre retail parcel in the C -N zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration.has been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Hsia presented the Report.to the Planning Commission, April 13, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:08 P.M. The City Attorney reviewed the Application and the history of this property. The Planning Director and Planner Calkins provided further information on the Application. Mr. Norm Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, commented as follows: - Reviewed.the history of the property and presented a project overview - Noted the difficulty of separating the three Applications - Design proposed was quite consistent with the City's original request in the sale contract - Reviewed site access alternatives and noted that both portions were. impacted_ by the Creek - Landscaping Plan had been upgraded from•that originally seen by the Commission - Types of retail tenants sought were discussed; projections made on townhouse owners - Asked that the Tentative Map not be approved priorto approval of the following Items Consensus reached by the Commission that all three. Applications would be heard concurrently. 13. DR -87 -123 Saratoga Partners, 12902.Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a 4,716 sq. ft. and a 10,275 sq. ft. retail building on a 1.29.acre parcel in the C -N zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. In.addition, design review approval of the proposed sign program is also requested. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. UP -87 -147 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga - SunnyvalelRd., request for use permit DR -87 -124 and design review approvals of plans to construct ten (10) townhouse units in a C -N (neighborhood commercial) zone district. A Negative Declaration has'.beenprepared for this project: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Hsia presented the Reports to the Planning Commission for Items 13 and 14. Mr. Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, presented photographs and commented as follows: Noted the constraints of both portions of the parcel, namely, narrowness of land available - Cited efforts to keep the proposed heights as low t<s possible while maintaining a roof line - Had discussed the project with neighbors; noted their concerns regarding privacy and view - Noted attempts to design a project that would be a good neighbor to existing home owners by maintaining required setbacks and limiting height However, the units were two -story; it was:impossible to place one -story units on -site t Balconies on units 1 -4 had been eliminated per. Staffs suggestion; he asked for further consideration of this situation by the Commission Balconies were off the master bedroom--not the of place where social, party activities - would occur, yet such would be an amenity to the units Gaps in the existing trees on the property line would be addressed in a landscaping plan Unit 5 side bedroom window (east side) was at a 5 ft. 2 in. height per Staff request; he noted density of trees, distance from adjacent property and asked for review of this issue PLANNING COMMISSION'MEETING Page 2 APRIL 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Kanti Khokhani; 20391 Wolcott Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Some neighbors present at the April 13th Meeting could not attend this hearing - Noted concern.thatproposed project would block•their views - Excessive bulk- -all townhouse units were two -story in height - Noted the resulting privacy impacts from the proposed design Ms. Khokhani confirmed that such was the case. Ms. Dee Fulghume, 20502 Wardell Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Primarily concerned about existing traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale, Wardell/Cox intersection - Barton- Aschman.Traffic Study did not consider the possibility of no interchange in Saratoga for Route 85; such would considerably impact. Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. - Cited the bicycleJautomo bile, accidents on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Cox Ave. interchan ge - Retail/commercial Building #2 appeared large and was only a limited distance from corner - Noted safety hazards due to proposed placement of the retail/commercial building - Cited considerable traffic impacts from previous improvements,on :Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. - Questioned what would happen if access to the adjacent southerly property were closed off - Asked that safety, hours of operation and uses be considered; opposed alcohol uses on site The City Attomey suggesting recording a mutual access/parking easement of the Applicant's property with the southerly property. Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce:Rd.,.Saratoga, commented as follows: - Increased traffic on Pierce Rd. resulted in difficult left hand turns onto Cox. Ave. - Suggested design alternatives to relieve traffic hazards; visibility impairments noted Mr. Jerry Kocir, 128.15 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited existing traffic impacts and noted that such would worsen - Heard complaints that houses had become devalued after approval of this development - Cited street and culvert measurements and noted the -need for bicycle /pedestrian lanes Asked that safety factors to betaken into consideration - Existing utility pole would have to be moved back from the corner - Asked if a stacking.lane on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd./Pierce Rd. would be installed - Noted an apparent lack of airvents'in the basement and lack of bridging every 10 ft. - Noted the parking easement on the Santa Clara Water District easement Questioned the lack of pedestrian access from residential to commercial portion of the site Mr. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented.as follows: - Cited existing traffic problems - Questioned uses,.hours of operation of the retail/commercial portion of the site - Concurred that the comer building was too close to Saratoga - Sunnyvale /Cox intersection Mr. Khokhani suggested consideration of reversing the townhouses and the swimming pool. Mr. Bill Hershman, Saratoga Partners, addressed the above issues as follows: - Confirmed that a 10 ft. dedication, street widening. and improvements would be done - Bridge across the culvert would be widened - Reviewed the retail/commercial building setbacks and the relocation of the utility pole - Sharpness of the turn at :Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. /Cox Ave. would be eased - A pedestrian bridge was being designed and would be installed per Conditions of Approval - Cal Transdiscussed closure of the left hand turn lane at Argonaut. Shopping Center with the Applicants; however,.after an independent study they concluded that such -was not-needed - Cal Trans did not disapprove of the proposed driveway access; Applicants were caught between City and Cal Trans requirements to show approval from both parties - Water District had approved the easement. shown on exhibits presented. The District was favorable to having the easement paved and,used:for parking Commissioner Siegfried asked that street improvements be staked.fovthe Commission to see. Mr. Jerry Kocir presented information received from Cal Trans regarding a driveway on -site. Ms. Folger asked that a certain tree be protected when.the utility pole was relocated. The Public Hearing remained open. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 APRII, 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried asked that suitable exhibits be prepared showing road improvements and both developments to enable the Commission to visualize the overall impact of the project. He noted that he had substantial problems with the corner retail/commercial building and the proposed size and impact of the townhouses; Chairwoman Guch concurred. Mr. Hulberg commented as follows: - Location of the comer building-was primarily determined by site'.constraints and regulations - Concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that this comer was heavily travelled and impacts on visibility.were extremely importanr,Applicants also wished to address any safety hazards. - Townhouses would be.designed to standards; Applicants wished to work with neighbors BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD- 87- 019,123, 124 AND UP -87 -017 TO MAY 25, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSIONHELD OMMAY 17, 1988. Passed 5 -0. Commissioner Burger commented as follows: Major concern was the proposed access off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd; she was not favor - able.to another access at this location and cited provisions:made for the adjacent property Retail Building #2: wished to see exact measurements of distance from the property lines Plans showed the comer building too close to the ^property lines and too high Both setbacks and height of Building #2 would have to be reviewed; furthermore, it may be necessary to reduce the amount of retail space Uses would have to be conditioned; particularly restaurant use.and serving of alcohol Commissioner Harris commented as follows: - Concurred with Commissioner Burger's. comments - Suggested consideration of reversing the two retail buildings,to•address concerns raised - Suggested townhouses 3, 4 be reversed to eliminate a,.''walled" impact neighbors would see - Changing the configuration of the pool to break up thelengthy facade of townhouses - Cited concerns regarding massiveness of the proposed project to the south - Setback of Unit 5 appeared close; asked that plans. show the project - Noted concern that the project as a whole would compound impacts - Noted concern regarding the stacking of cars at Cox Ave. to Pierce.Rd. traffic light Commissioner Siegfried commented as follows: - Added a request that exhibits prepared by the Applicants show access/ entrances to the project both on Cox Ave. -and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. - Noted concern of impacts of townhouse buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 for neighbors to the rear - Suggested alternative configurations for these townhouse units be used Commissioner Tucker concurred with the above and added her concerns regarding site access. Chairwoman Guch commented as.followsi - Would not approve townhouses at a 25 ft. height, especially since. this was a corner location - Noted the impacts resulting from the height, bulk proposed and severity of rear design; adjacent residents in one - story'homes would be impacted by such a project - Suggested reconfiguration.of the units. - However, the corner unit seemed acceptable.and landscaping would screen the unit ' - Suggested relocation of the pool which would provide visual space for rear neighbors - Had more concerns of the proposed townhouse development than the commercial site - 'With respect to the retail/commercial building on the corner, there was heavy traffic and there was noway to mitigate the.impact of the building - Landscaping of this building was limited due to lines of sight for traffic, pedestrians The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. 7 Res ctfully submitt , Carol A. Probst -Ca Ighey REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: April 13, 1.988_' APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -87 -017, DR -87 -124, 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. ( S.E. corner Saratoga - Sunnyvale & Cox Ave.) APPLICANT: Saratoga Partners APN: 393 -01 -001 PROJECT _DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Sections 15- 55.070, 15- 19.030(8) and 15- 46.040, the applicant is requesting use permit and design review approvals of plans to construct 10 - townhouse units on a 1.4 acre parcel in the C -N zone district. In connection with the above use permit request, the following modifications to the CN district development standards are requested: 1. modify the height limit to allow the townhomes to be 25.5 ft. high where 20-ft. is permitted in CN district. 2. modify the side yard setback to 11 ft for unit #5 and to 25 ft. for units #3 and #4 where a 36 ft. setback is required. ISSUES: The proposed location of the townhouses is in accord with the objective of the. zoning ordinance and the purposes of the CN zone district in'that they promote a logical and reasonable land use transition between the single family homes to the east and the more intense retail. uses to the `west . In addition, the townhomes will not be detrimental to the public health., safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the area in that no significant traffic impacts will result and the design of the units is complimentary to the adjacent single family homes. Lastly, the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning code in that the proposed density ( 7.14 du /ac) is well below the maximum density of 10.89 du /ac permitted by the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve both applications by adoptind Resolutions UP -87 -017 and D.R -87 -124. PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 3/15/88. SD -87 -017 and DR -87 -124 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 3/30/88 and direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the project. ATTACHMENTS: I. Resolution UP -87 -017 2. Resolution DR -87 -124 3. Exhibit "B ", Design Review Criteria 4. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 5. Exhibit C, Plans UP -87 -017 EXHIBIT Cox Avenue Design Review 1. The architectural features o harmonious in that they are materials and colors will be complimentary, with the same throughout the project. 11B11 Criteria P the townhomes are all the same style and identical used. Landscaping appears to be species of plants being used 2. Landscaping is clustered in natural appearing groups, except where it is meant to serve as screening; for example, the landscape plan shows that additional trees are to be planted along the east side property line to protect the privacy of'! the single family homes next door. Also, birch and pine trees proposed along this property line will help decrease the visual impacts and minimize the perception of bulk of the units. 3. The proposed exterior colors and materials are natural earth tones and are non - reflective. 4. Roofing materials are wood shakes as required, and roof top mechanical equipment, if any, will not be visible. 5. The proposed development is complimentary in terms of bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Although the adjacent neighborhood is predominantly.one story single family dwellings, the 2`5.5 ft height is not excessive and will not appear out of character. Also, the townhomes primary orientation on the lot and existing and proposed landscaping will ensure that they will not be particularly imposing from Cox Avenue or adjacent lots to.the east. w. t � TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: April 13, 1988 APN:. 393-01-001 - APPLICATLON NO & LOCATION: DR -8-7 -124, UP -87 -017, 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road ACTION REQUESTED! Use Permit and Design Review approval of plans to construct 10 townhomes in a C -N zone district. APPLICANT: Saratoga Partners PROPERTY OWNER: City of Saratoga OTHER_ APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Tentative and Final Map, and Buildina Permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEQA ZONING: C -N GENERAL PLAN: PDM (Planned Development) EXISTING LAND USE:. Vacant SUrROU'NDiNG.LAND USES: North, east: Single family homes, south: 7- townhomes under constructi.on,.west: retail building (proposed) PARCEL SIZE: 1.4 NATURAL FEATURES Shopping.Center; SLOPE AT BUILDING GRADING REQUIRED: the plan approved acre (net) S:_ VEGETATION: West: Vacant SITE: 2% Grading has by the Planni PROPOSED SETBACKS: North, east: SFD; South: Argonaunt (retail building proposed) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:- 2% been completed in.-accordance with ng Commission on 10/19/'8.7 Front: 16 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Left Side: 11 -30 ft.Right Side: 1.3 -50 ft. HEIGHT: 25.5 ft. !MPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 52% (32,391 sq. ft.) SIZE OF STRUCTURE.: Unit A Unit 3 First Floor (include. garage): 1425 sq. ft. 1313 sa. ft. .Second Floor: 1066 sq, ft. 1108 sq. ft. TOTAL: 2491 sa. ft. 2421 sa.- ft. * does not include 154 sq. ft. of double counted area (stairway) *"` does not includes 141 sq. ft. of double counted area (stairway) ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. in that the applicant is requesting height and sideyard setback modifications. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED.: "IJANHOE" stucco exterior with stone accents and wood shake roof. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Proposal The applicant is requesting use permit and design review approval of plans to construct 10- townhomes on a 1.4 acre site located in the C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. In addition, the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission modify the following C -N district development standards: 1) modify the height limit from 20 ft. maximum to 25.5 ft., and 2) modify the side yard setback from 30 ft. to it ft. for unit # 5 and to 25 ft. for units #3 and #4. E. Analysis I. Use Permit - In staff's opinion, multi- family residential use is appropriate for this location because it is compatible with both the single family residential to the east and the proposed commercial use. to the west. In terms of intensity of development, the density of the townhomes is less than the allowable general plan density for the PDM district. The townhomes are an intermediate use that will act as a buffer between the adjacent single family residential and commercial uses. The proposed modification to the C -N district height standard is appropriate and will not create any adverse impacts. For example a-height of 25.5 ft is not excessive for a two -story structure and is reasonable in relation to the adjacent single family neighborhood. In addition, the proposed height is consistent with the approved townhouse project to the south and with other existing multi - family projects in the City. The requested modification to decrease the setbacks along the side yard from 30 ft.. to it ft for unit #5 and to 25 ft. for-units #3 and #4 will not have any adverse impacts on adjacent properties. For example, the 11 ft set-back proposed along the easterly elevation of unit # 5 will not create any perception of bulk or privacy concerns since existing and proposed . landscaping between the unit and intervening property line will adequately screen the structure and restrict the view onto the adjacent property. In addition., the applicant has proposed a skylight type second floor bedroom window (i.e., the window begins a minimum of 5 ft. above the floor) along the easterly elevation of unit #5.. �Y The only other windows along that elevation are within the stairway area. Lastly, as a way to reduce the perceived bulk of the east elevation of unit # 5, the applicant has stopped the stone accents at the bottom of the stairway window. The proposed decrease in the setback for units #3 and #4 will not have any adverse impact on views or privacy. Once again, existing and proposed landscaping along the property line will screen both units and limit the view from these units /second floor bedrooms. In addition, no second story balconies are proposed for any of the units facing the existing homes to the east. 2. Design Review - In staffs opinion, the applicant's plans comply with the design review-criteria as set forth in City Code Section 15- 46.040 (See exhibit B). C'. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve both applications. All of the reauired use permit findings to allow a multi - family use in the C -N zone district and to modify the height and side yard setbacks can be made. In addition, all of the multi- family design review criteria have been satisfied. The proposed development is complimentary in terms of bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area and will not create any privacy impacts or appear excessively bulky. Design Review RESOLUTION NO. DR -37-124 CITY OF SARA.TOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct 10 townhouse units on a 1.4 acre parcel located'at 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale. Road WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of _proof reauired to support said application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: See Exhibit "A" PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City,of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of April, :908 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date DR -87 -124 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. EXHIBIT "A" 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 3. Prior to submittal for building permit-or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department.' 4. Height of each townhome shall not exceed 25.5 feet. 5. No structure shall. be permitted in any easement. 6. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. '7. Exterior colors 'shall be as proposed or subject to staff review and approval. 8. Landscaping for (i".e. adjacent installed prior 9. Applicant shall by licensed pro a. Soils b. Foundation screening along the easterly property line to existing single family dwellings) shall be to final occupancy. submit a geotechnical investigation and report Eessio.nal to include details on: 10. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the.following shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to' issuance of grading or building permits: a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b. Drainage details (conduit type,--s-lope, ou.tfall, locations., etc.) C. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A, or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet higher.. d. Erosion control measures. e. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan . using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's, owner's name, and address on plans, etc. 11. A sewer district permit is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210) 13. Early Warning Fire alarm maintained in accordance. 60 City of Saratoga). 14. Early Warning fire alarm relative to the proposed to the. Fire District for 'building permit (City of System shall be installed and with the provisions of (Article 16- System shall have documentation installation and shall be submitted approval, prior to issuance of a Saratoga Code 16 -60) 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all garages. 16. Turn - arounds: Construct a turn - around on the site having a 32' inside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 17. Parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwellin g. site. or as required by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 18. Obtain final map approval (SD -87 -019) prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for all-on-site landscaping.. 20. Construction must be commenced within 60 days-.after the issuance of building permits, and shall be substantially completed, including all on- site,and off -site public improvements, within ten (10) months after the commencement date. 21. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date Design Review RESOLUTION NO. UP -87 -017 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA APN # 393 -01 -001 SARATOGA PARTNERS WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit Approval of plans to construct 10 townhomes on a 1.4 acre site in the C -N district. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds: (a) That the proposed location of the townhomes is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposed of--,the district in which the site is located. Specifically, a harmonious relationship among land uses is achieved, since the proposed multifamily residential serves as a "transition" zone between the single family residential district to the east and the more intensely commercial development (proposed)_ to the west. (b) That the proposed location of the townhomes and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The townhomes are complimentary to both the adjacent residential and commercial uses and serve as a noise buffer. The traffic report prepared for the project indicates that the increase in traffic is not significant. (c) That the proposed townhomes will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. It is consistent with the General Plan as well in that the proposed density (7.14 du /ac.�, is well below the maximum density of 10.09 du /ac permitted by the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Saratoga Partners for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: none PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission State of California, this 13th day of April, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Calkins DATE: June 8, 1988 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd APPLICANT /OWNER: Saratoga Partners / City of Saratoga APN: 393 -01 -001 Q N 1�72'Q y I 1 l�i� rZb99 sc 12.7 0 V (1) C2 C3 ~ 386-36 n� 8 77 1�1r� 121 15 (11) ^,... (6) 13 366-13 366 -13-7 Q 1113 386- 36.14 12'122 20 ! '73 2 3 0 386- 3` -02. U / 3$ 366 -13-71 (q` � l� #' 12735 (to) 386 -36 ��) Czo) t �:.•�. 354 Z0501 I L1 S3 ' (9) (7) (g g1 "tE (A So3 -1e -98 1�1� 20405 /2't -52 (B) 12750 '20378 ) l�? " 3-96 -t7 38b-36- Ib 38x-96 386•S6 ' 20542 o, 49 94 i55 20543 95 -rg- so3 -18- O 20502 % 2o395 >:z 0 �6) Y .J So3 -/8 -89 ^ 39/ 03 253 (,�39�-03 12 7S Z 903 �2) O 5 219 04 391-03. *- z1376- 1277 03. Z54 3 391 4) 57 1.2-7-71 1 -oI 8 20385 Zo3gp 22, 26 2s5 2.S6 12791 391_0_ 37 391 -03 -2.77 (19W C195) C194) CI j 39/ -o3 -282 39303 39309 Zo3b1 12j 3' 391 -03- 14o 391- 142 141 I i 503-!8.0 12795 (19 2941 503 -1 12551 (198) 19 503-/8 S ®, 391 - o/- 2g/ 991-03- 20360 203 143 391-03- 391•, 12 840 144 14 °o3 -t9 -b3 12861 !) C3Z) /2848 991 =os -175 12870 C3 50� -19 391-03 203 12879 2) 174• 39t-� ir2t3sc 12655 x2948 17 503 19 $O3 - 19 -4} , 34h03 f76 18 391- 03 -27/ 1289 7 ( 3) C14) 391-03-1.77 2036033, `IZ92.1 03- 20 (13) 5°'5 -19- Oz. (1) 391-03-270 12915 341- 12931 49 4!0 12120 391 -0308 (4l) PLANNER'S WORKSHEET Plan Check "vicinity /locator map included Dimensions shown on plot plan —7idjacent structures 7Directional arrow _7Trees labelled 7P1 reflect field conditions Heights.shown on cross sections N Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans V natural and finished grade on cross sections - ,V Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area /calculations w Roof pitch shown 'V ll.sheets included in submittal with required reductions Colors submitted Sta ff Reports iConditions from.other agencies /department correct Consistent figures throughout report History files examined • orrect address & application number on all Description consistent with advertisement lans labelled Order of attachment consistent with list All attachments included Typographical errors corrected /Dates on the resolutions correct pages of the report A:checklist File No. DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 8/21/87 Application complete; 10/2,6/87 Notice published: 3/30/88 Mailing completed: 3/31/88 Posting completed: 3/17/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 46.040, the applicant is requesting design review approval of plans to construct two single story retail buildings (Building #1 - 10,456 sq. ft., Building #2 - 4,512 sq. ft.) on a 1.3 acre lot, owned by the City, located at,the corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. In addition, design review approval of the proposed sign program is also requested. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant has revised the plans in response to the Planning Commissions concerns. The height of Building #2 has been reduced to 18 ft. and the portion of the building adjacent to the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue corner has been cut back to increase visibility at the corner.. The project meets all of the requirements of the CN zone district and the development standards contained in the agreement signed by the City and the applicant- All of the design review criteria for commercial buildings have been satisfied. The proposed sign program meets the requirements of the sign ordinance and is similar to the approved sign program for the retail project to the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application by adopting Resolution DR -87 -123. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -87 -123 3. C.O.W. report dated 5/17/88 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 4/19/88 5. Report to Planning Commission dated 4/13/88 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" RC /dsc 1 DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDM (Planned.District) PARCEL SIZE: 1.3 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2% GRADING REQUIRED: All grading was completed in accordance with grading plan approved by the Planning Commission on 10/19/87. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: "Bone" colored stucco exterior with shake roof. STRUCTURE COVERAGE: HEIGHT: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 26% (14,968 sq. ft.) Building #l: 20 ft. Building #2: 18 ft. Building #1: 10,456 sq. ft.. Building #2: 4,512 sq. ft. Building #1 SETBACKS: Front: 70 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 6 ft. Left Side: 124 ft. Building #2 Front: 18.5 ft. Rear: 40 ft. Right Side: 233 ft. Ext. Side.: 16 ft. Proposal /Background CODE REQUIREMENT/ T T T I T.T % 1 - 60% 20 ft. the a 15,000 sq. ft. (Total) Front: 15 ft. Rear: 0 ft. Right Side: 0 ft. Left /Exterior Side: 12 ft. The applicant is seeking design review approval of plans to construct 14,968 sq. ft. of retail space on a 1.3 acre lot in the C- N (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district.. The applicant proposes to construct two single story buildings of 4,512 sq. ft. and 10,45.6 sq. ft. in floor area. Primary access to this site will be via a right turn only driveway located south of Cox Avenue; however, access will also be available from the adjacent property to the south. 2 DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road At the 4/19%88 regular adjourned Planning Commission meeting, the following points of concern were expressed:. °proposed access to the project from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would mean that a total of three driveways would be located along that road in a very short distance. othe proposed height of Building #2 was excessive and sited too close to the corner. Its proximity to the corner may create visibility concerns, particularly for cars on Cox Avenue wishing to turn north onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. opotential uses and hours of operation needed to be addressed. At* the 5/17/88 C.O.W. meeting, the applicant presented revised plans and indicated that the height of Building #'2 was reduced to 18 ft. and the northwest corner of the building had been redesigned to increase the site distance down Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The Commission discussed the changes and reached a consensus that Building #2 was too close to the corner at 18 ft. in height. In addition, the Commission was concerned that the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue corner should be developed consistent with the residential character of the area. RECOMMENDATION': Staff recommends approval of DR -87 -123 -. The project meets the CN zone district regulations with respect to setbacks, parking and height requirements and satisfies the design criteria set forth in Section 15- 46'.040. The project also complies with the development agreement signed by the City and the applicant. 3 Committee -of- the -Whole Report 5/17/88 C•r D., and E, - DR -87 -01.9, DR -87 -123, DR -87 -124, UP -87 -147 Saratoga Partners, 1.2902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale from 4/13/88), - (Continued Planner Caldwell reviewed the issues of concern expressed by the Commisslon. third access onto. Saratoga- Synnyvale Road, height and location of the corner retail building, configuration and height of the townhomes and location of the swimming pool. Townhomes . Norm Hulberg, applicant, presented his revised plans and introduced the new architect for the townhomes , Colin Vessell, and the landscape architect, Mike Dillon. The townhomes were relocated, exterior materials revised from stucco to horizontal wood and the roof changed from a gable to hip. The southern unit was 12 ft. instead of 11 ft. from the east property line. The total square footage was the same and guest parking remained at 6 spaces. The balcony on the second story, 5 ft.. 6 in. width, places the balcony approximately 7 ft. from the property line. The fence along the east will remain. The neighbors commented that they wanted heavy vegetation along the eastern property line to give them privacy and soften the impact of the townhouses. Comments from the Committee included: 1. Balconies along the rear elevations towards the eastern property line should be eliminated. 2. More guest parking should,be provided. 3. Project was too dense. 4. Unit at the south should be reudced in height or eliminated. 5. Hours of the pool and spa should be restricted in the CC &R's. 6. Lighting plan should be prepared and submitted to the Commission for approval. 7. Landscaping along the eastern property line should address the privacy 'of the neighbors and provide a screen between properties. r . Mr. Hulberg stated that he cannot reduce the height. He cannot build less than 10 units without renegotiating the price with Council. Buildings T, °may place, traffic engineer, descr_ibod the ling of =ryht C.O.W. Report (con't) distance to the south; he did not consider any earthen mound or landscaping along the proposed building Of Cox Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road in hi he he saw no committee-0 f- th s e -Whole Minutes 5/17/88 ss with the proposed location of buildin Problem described the reduction in the heightgof2the building elopers 20 ft. to 18 ft. and the redesign of the northwest conerrof the building to increase the site distance down Saratoga- curb, Road. The PG &E pole would be relocated bSaratoga- curb, signals* at Blauer, Pierce, and Cox would be syncronized. The Committee discussed their various concerns: is too close to the streets at 18 ft Building in height, and should be redesigned or relocated to allow landscaping and berms, around the building. Aesthetically developed consistent with the residential echaracter hofldthe area. The Committee was equally appropriateness of a third driveway cut ldon Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 19, 1988 - 8:05 P:M. PLACE: Senior Center, 13655 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, Commissioner Kolstad absent PUBLIC HEARINGS: • 12. SD -87 -019 Saratoga Partners,12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., request for tentative subdivision approval for a 12 lot subdivision of a 2.7 acre parcel to accommodate 10 townhomes and a common area lot, and a 1.29 acre retail parcel in the C -N zoning district per Chapters 14 -and 15 of the City Code. A Negative.Declaration has been prepared for this project. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, April 13, 1988. The Public Hearing wns opened at 8:08 P.M. The City Attorney'reviewed the Application and the history of this property. The Planning Director and Planner Calkins provided, further information on the Application. Mr. Norm Hulberg, Saratoga. Partners,. commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the.property and presented a project,overview - Noted the difficulty of separating the three Applications - Design proposed was quite consistent with the City's original request in the sale contract - Reviewed site - access alternatives and noted that both portions were impacted by the Creek - Landscaping Plan had been upgraded.from that originally seen by the Commission - Types of retail tenants sought were discussed; projections made on townhouse owners - Asked that the Tentative Map not be approved prior to approval of the following Items Consensus reached by the Commission that all three Applications would be heard concurrently. 13. DR -87 -123 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a 4,716 sq. ft. and a 10,275 sq. ft. retail building on a 1.29 acre parcel in the C -N zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. In addition, design review approval of the proposed sign program is also requested. 14. UP -87 -147 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., requesbfor use permit DR -87 -124 and design review approvals of plans to construct ten (10) townhouse units in a C -N (neighborhood commercial) zone district. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. ------------------------------------------ Planning Director Hsia presented the Reports to the Planning Commission for Items 13 and 14. Mr. Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, presented photographs;and commented as follows: - Noted the constraints of both portions of the parcel, namely, narrowness of land available - Cited efforts to keep the proposed heights.as low as possible while maintaining a roof line - Had discussed the project with neighbors; noted their concerns regarding privacy and view - Noted attempts to design a project that would be a good neighbor to existing home owners by maintaining required setbacks and limiting height However, the units were two- story;•it was impossible to place one -story units on -site Balconies on units 1 -4 had been eliminated per Staffs suggestion; he asked for further consideration of this situation by the Commission Balconies were off the master bedroom- -not the sort of place where social, party activities - would occur, yet such would bean amenity to the units Gaps in the existing trees on the property line would be addressed in a landscaping plan Unit 5 side bedroom window (east side) was at a 5 ft. 2 in. height per Staff request; he noted density of trees, distance from adjacent property and asked for review of this issue PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 APRIL 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Kanti Khokhani, 20391 Wolcott Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Some neighbors present atthe.April 13th Meeting could not attend this.hearing - Noted concern that proposed•project would block their views - Excessive bulk--all townhouse units were two -story in height - Noted the resulting privacy impacts from, the, proposed design Ms. Khokhani confirmed that such was the case. Ms. Dee Fulghume; 20,502 Wardell Rd., Saratoga, commented as-follows: - Primarily concerned about - existing traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale, Wardell/Cox intersection - Barton-Aschman Traffic Study did not consider the possibility of no interchange in Saratoga for Route 85; such would considerably impact Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. - Cited the bicycle/automobile accidents on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Cox Ave. interchange - Retail /commercial Building 42'appeared large and was only a limited distance from corner - Noted safety hazards due to proposed placement of the retail/commercial building - Cited considerable traffic impacts from previous improvements on Saratoga- Sunnyvale,Rd. - Questioned what would happen if access to the'adj'acent southerly property were closed off - Asked that safety, hours of operation and uses be considered; opposed alcohol uses on-site The City Attorney suggesting recording a mutual.access/parking easement of the Applicant's property with the southerly property. Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Increased traffic on Pierce R& resulted in difficult left hand turns onto Cox. Ave. - Suggested design alternatives to relieve traffic hazards; visibility impairments noted Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12815 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.,.Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited existing traffic impacts and noted that such would worsen - Heard complaints that houses had become devalued,after approval of this • development - Cited street and culvert measurements and noted the need.for bicycle /pedestrian lanes - Asked that safety factors to be taken into consideration - Existing utility pole would have to be moved back from the comer - Asked if a stacking lane on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd./Pierce Rd. would be installed - Noted an apparent lack of air vents in the basement and lack of bridging every 10 ft. - Noted the parking easement on the Santa Clara Water District easement - Questioned the lack of pedestrian access from. residential to commercial portion of the site Mr. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited existing traffic problems - Questioned uses, hours of operation of the retail/commercial portion of the site - Concurred that the comer building was too close to Saratoga - Sunnyvale /Cox intersection Mr. Khokhani suggested consideration of reversing the townhouses and the swimming pool. Mr. Bill Hershman,, Saratoga,Parmers, addressed the above issues as follows: - Confirmed that 10 ft. dedication, streetwidening and improvements would be done - Bridge across the culvert would be widened - Reviewed the retaii/commercial'building setbacks and the relocation of the utility pole - Sharpness of the turn at Saratoga- Sunnyvale.Rd. /Cox Ave. would be eased - A pedestrian bridge was being designed.and would be installed per Conditions of Approval - Cal Trans discussed closure of the left hand tum.lane at Argonaut Shopping Center with the Applicants; however, after An independent study they concluded that such was not needed - Cal Trans did not disapprove of the proposed driveway access; Applicants were caught between City and Cal' Trans, requirements to show approval from both patties - • Water District had approved the easement shown ort exhibits presented - The District was favorable to having the easement paved and used for parking Commissioner Siegfried asked that street improvements be staked for the Commission to see. Mr. Jerry Kocir presented information received from Cal Trans regarding a driveway on -site. Ms. Folger asked that a certain tree be protected when the utility pole was relocated. The Public Hearing remained open. s «, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 APRIL 19,1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried asked that suitable exhibits be prepared showing road improvements and.both developments to enable the Commission to visualize the overall.impact of the project. / He noted that he had substantial problems with the corner retail /commercial building and the proposed size and impact of the townhouses; Chairwoman Guch concurred. Mr. Hulberg commented as follows: - Location of the corner building was primarily determined by site constraints and regulations - Concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that-this comer was heavily travelled and impacts on visibility were extremely important; Applicants also-wished to address•any safety hazards - Townhouses would be designed to standards; Applicants wished to work with neighbors BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-87-019,123,124 AND UP -87 -017 TO MAY 25, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION HELD:ON MAY 17, 1988. Passed 5 -0. . Commissioner Burger commented as follows: - Major concern was the proposed access•off of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd; she was not favor- able to another access at this location and cited provisions °made for the adjacent property - Retail Building #2:,wishedto see.exact measurements of distani a from the property lines - Plans showed the comer building too close to the property lines and too high - Both setbacks and height-of Building• 42 would have to be reviewed; furthermore, it may be necessary to reduce the amount of retail.space - Uses would have to be conditioned; particularly restaurant use and serving of alcohol Commissioner Harris commented as follows: - Concurred with Commissioner Burger's comments - Suggested-consideration of reversing the two retail buildings to address concerns raised - Suggested townhouses 3, 4 be- reversed to eliminate a "walled" impact neighbors would see - Changing the configuration of the pool to break up the lengthy facade of townhouses - Cited concems regarding:massiveness of the proposed project to the south - Setback of Unit 5 appeared close;. asked that plans show the project - Noted concern that the project as a.whole would compound impacts - Noted concern regarding the stacking of cars at Cox Ave. to Pierce Rd. traffic light Commissioner Siegfried commented as follows: - Added a request that exhibits prepared by the Applicants show. access/ entrances to the project both Cox Ave. and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. - Noted concern of impacts of townhouse buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 for neighbors to the rear - Suggested alternative configurations for these, townhouse units be used Commissioner Tucker concurred with the above and added her concerns regarding site access. Chairwoman Guch commented as follows: - Would not approve townhouses at a 25 ft. height, especially since this was a corner location - Noted the impacts resulting from the height, bulk proposed and severity of rear design; adjacent residents in one -story homes would be impacted by such a project - Suggested reconfiguration of the units However, the comer unit:seemed acceptable and landscaping would screen the•unit - Suggested relocation of the pool which would ptvvide,visual space for rear neighbors Had more concerns of the proposed townhouse development, than the commercial site With respect to the retail/commercial building on the corner, there was heavy traffic and there was no way to mitigate the impact of the building Landscaping of this building was limited due to lines of sight for'traffic, pedestrians The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50 RM. Respectfully submittel, �'� . 1 arol A. Probst- Caughey REPORT TO PLANNING COW4ISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: April 13, 1988 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (.S.W. corner Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. & Cox Ave. APPLICANT: Saratoga Partners APN: 393 -01 -001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to.City Code Section 15- 4.6.0401 the applicant is requesting design review approval of plans to construct two single story retail buildings (Building #1 - 10,274 sq. ft., Building #2 - 4,716 sq. ft.) on a 1.3 acre lot, owned by the City, located at the corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave. In addition, design review approval of the proposed sign program is also requested. ISSUES: 1. Design Review - The project meets all of the requirements of the C -N zone district and the development standards contained in the agreement signed by the City and applicant. In addition, all of the design criteria for commercial buildings have been satisfied. 2. Access - Although the Planning staff prefers that a driveway accessing this site from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. not be constructed, the traffic report states that the proposed driveway will not create any safety hazards. 3. Sign Program - The proposed sign program meets the requirements of the sign ordinance and is similar to the sign program approved by the Planning Commission for the retail,project to the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION :. Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -87 -12`3. PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 10/30/88. DR -87 -123 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 3/30/88 and direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the project,. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. RC /dsc Resolution DR -87 -123 Exhibit B, Design Criteria (Retail) Technical Information /Staff Analysis Development Agreement between the City and applicant Exhibit C, Plans 1 Design Review RESOLUTION N.O. DR -87 -123 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct two single story (20 ft. high) retail buildings located at 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Saratoga Partners for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: See Exhibit A PASSED-AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of April , 19:88 by the.following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Chairperson, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commission 3/87 2 DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. EXHIBIT "A" 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this:r.esolution or said resolution . shall be void. 2. Construction must be commenced within 60 days after the .issuance of building permits, and shall be substantially completed, including all on -site and off -site public improvements, within ten (10) months after the commencement date 3. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "C ", incorporated by reference. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 5. No structure shall be permitted in any - easement. 6. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 7. Exterior colors shall be as proposed or subject to staff review and approval. 8. Landscaping per the approved plans shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 9. Applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional to include details on: a.) Soils b.) Foundation 10. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the Building Dept. prior to issuance of grading or building permits: a.) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)" b.) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) `�... C.) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher d.) Erosion control measures 3 .. DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. e.) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's. owner's name, etc. 11. A sewer district permit is required prior to the issuance of a plumbing permit. 12. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210) 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed in each building and maintained in accordance with the provisions of (Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga).. 14. Documentation relative to the installation of the Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit (City of Saratoga 16 -60). 15. Approved sprinkler system shall be installed in each building. 16. Obtain final map approval (SD -87 -019) prior to issuance of a building permit. '17. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for all on -site landscaped areas. 19. All roof top mechanical equipment, if any, beyond the height of the roof. The foregoing conditions are.hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date 4 shall not extend DR -87 -123; 12902 Sartoga - Sunnyvale Rd. EXHIBIT "B" Design Review Criteria 1. The architectural features of the two buildings are harmonious. They are the same style and height (20 ft.), and identical colors and materials are proposed for both. Although the rear (east) elevation of Building #2 is plain and uninteresting, this elevation will not be visible from the street since it faces the creek. All the other elevations of both buildings are aesthetically pleasing. 2. In general, landscaping is clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to regular spacing. The choice of species is appropriate (alder, holly oak, and birch), and the initial gallonages to be planted are adequate. 3. The proposed exterior wall colors and roofing materials blend with the natural landscape and are non - reflective; the color proposed for the trim is also appropriate. 4. Roofing materials are wood shakes. No mechanical equipment on the roof will be visible. 5. The development is compatible in terms of height, bulk and - design with existing and proposed structures in the immediate area; for example, the Argonaut Center and the recently approved retail project on the property just to the south of the subject property. The proposed center's earthtone colors and low profile buildings make it complimentary to the residential neighborhood across Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave.. 5 a TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: April 13, 1988- APN: 393 -01 -001 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. (SE corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. & Cox Ave.) ACTION REQUESTED: Design review approval of plans to construct two retail buildings. APPLICANT: Saratoga Partners PROPERTY OWNER.: City of Saratoga OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Tentative and final map and building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEQA (15303) ZONING: C -N GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: C -R (Retail Commercial) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: South - Saratoga I Retail, North & West - Single family homes, East - Vacant (10 townhomes proposed) PARCEL SIZE: 1.3 acres NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Level area with creek running through NW to SE. The area has been graded so that no significant vegetation exists within the building areas; however, several mature oak trees exist within the creek easement. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 2% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2% GRADING REQUIRED: All grading has been completed in accordance with the grading plan approved by the Planning Commission on 10/19/87. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Building #1: Front: 70 ft.'Rear: 60 ft. Left Side: 130 ft. Right Side: 6 ft. Building #2: Front: 15 ft. Rear: 40 ft. Left Side: 13 ft. Right Side 233 ft. HEIGHT: 20 ft. STRUCTURE COVERAGE: 26% (60%-,is allowed) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 52% (30,156 sq. ft.) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Building #1: 10,275 sq. ft. Building #2: 4,716 sq. ft. TOTAL: 14,991 sq. ft. 11 DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The proposed retail project does meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: "Bone" colored stucco exterior with a shake roof. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Proposal /Background The applicant is seeking design review approval of plans to construct 14,991 sq. ft. of retail space on a 1.3 acre lot in. the C N.•(Neighborhood Commercial) zone district. The applicant proposes to construct two single story (20 ft. high) buildings of 4,716 sq. ft. and 10,,275 sq. ft. in area. Primary access to this site will be via a right turn only driveway located south of Cox Avenue; however, access will also be available from the adjacent property to the south. Analysis 1. Design Review— City Code Section 15- 4.6.040 sets forth the design criteria by which all commercial buildings shall be reviewed. In this case, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the design criteria as explained in 'Exhibit B of this report. 2.. Traffic Volume - A traffic impact report analyzing the impacts of the proposed project has been prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. (see staff report for.SD -87- 019). The report concludes that the service levels at the four intersections under study, i.e. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Cox, Pierce, Brandywine /Argonaut entrance and Blauer, will not be.adversely affected.by the project. It also states that while the level of service (LOS) at the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox intersection will "degrade" from C to borderline C /D, this increase will be less than 1% and would be "imperceptible to the observer or motorist on the street ";. there -fore, no mitigation measures should be undertaken. 3. Circulation - The above traffic report also evaluated the proposed on and off -site circulation for the project. The proposed site plan shows one driveway (for right turns only) off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., located approximately 190 ft. south of Cox Ave. Including the proposed driveway, a total of three driveways will exist between Pierce Rd. and Cox Ave., i.e. two serving adjacent project to the south and one for this project. The traffic report concludes that while "outbound vehicles wishing to merge into the left -turn lane at 'Cox.need 300 ft. of distance, no safety problem would be created (since) any driver anticipating difficulty with the merge due to traffic volumes on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.. could 7 DR -87 -123; 12902 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. could use either of the other two driveways" located on the adjacent property to the south. The Planning staff would prefer to limit the number of driveways between both properties to a maximum of two, particularly since this lot has an access easement over the property to the south, however, given the traffic report's conclusion that the third driveway will not create a safety problem, a driveway on the subject property is satisfactory. 4. Sign Program - The proposed sign program is identical to the one approved for the project to the south. One free- standing sign and an indeterminant number of individual shop signs attached to the building's facia are proposed. The free - standing sign, advertising the name of the center, or tenants thereof, is proposed to be 8 ft.' long by 5 ft.. tall (40 sq. ft.) and anchored on a 1.5 ft. high concrete pedestal. This double face sign will be interior illuminated with fluorescent lamp lighting and is proposed to be located on the northerly side of the driveway leading to the project. The free - standing sign will be placed approximately 8 ft. from the edge of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. The proposed building fascia signs will have a maximum 15 in. high individual letters where 18 in. high letters are allowed. Each letter will have a translucent plastic .face and be interior illuminated by neon tubes. Tenant logos, if used, will be no higher than 15 in. and no larger than 6 sq. ft. in total area. The applicant has proposed that the letter style and color be determined by- the tenant and approved by the landlord.. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 30.100(3), the total allowable sign area for the retail project is 150 sq. ft., i.e. 1/2 sq. ft. of sign area for each foot of store frontage. A freestanding identification sign not exceeding 40 sq. ft. is permitted however, the area of this sign must be deducted from the total sign. area above. Therefore, since the applicant has proposed a 40 sq. ft. freestanding sign, a maximum of 110 sq. ft. of sign area is available to the tenants of the retail spaces. In addition, the code limits the aggregate area of all identification signs on .site to 4,O sq. ft. for each separate use upon the site. The design review criteria for retail buildings listed in City Code Section 15- 46.040(b) states that "where -more than 8 DR -87 -123; 129.02 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance." In that regard, a unifying theme to the center's signs can be achieved by requiring all building signs be the same color. For the adjacent retail project to the south, the Planning Commission required that all sign letters be the same color, i.e. white on the cedar wood background and blue on the stucco background. Staff recommends the same restrictions for this project. C. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of DR -87 -123. The C -N zone district regulations with respect to and height requirements and satisfies the set forth in Section 15- 46.040. . The project the development agreement signed by the City a E project meets the setbacks, parking design criteria also complies with nd the applicant. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 15 , 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Amendment of Design Review Ordinance Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance amends Section 15- 45.060(a) of the City Code to require design review approval for single story structures over 18 feet in height, as discussed during the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 22, 1988. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting on April 27, 1988, .. and has recommended adoption of the same. - Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Proposed ordinance. (b) Negative declaration. (c) Memorandum from City Attorney to Planning Commission dated April 18, 1988. Motion and Vote: MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Amendment to Design Review Ordinance DATE: April 18, 1988 zp_g?F -Do1 J. M. ATKINSON (1692 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (.1915 -1979) At the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 22, 1988, there was a consensus to amend the design review ordinance to require design review approval of any single story structure over 18 feet in height. The proposed ordinance will accomplish this amendment by inserting a new item (3) in paragraph (a) of Section 15- 45.060. Items (4) through (8) have been renumbered but otherwise are identical to the existing ordinance. With the proposed amendment, any single story structure, wherever located, would require design review if the structure exceeds 18 feet in height. In contrast, a multi -story structure exceeding 18 feet in height would not automatically require design review approval by the Planning Commission. The multi -story structure must fall within one of the other categories listed in this paragraph (e.g., located upon a hillside lot; conversion of a single -story to multi- story; design review required as a condition of subdivision approval; gross floor area in excess of 6,000 square feet, etc.). It is therefore conceivable that the applicant may be able to construct a multi -story structure by obtaining administrative approval -from staff, but could not build a single - story structure over 18-feet in height without obtaining design review approval from the Planning Commission. "0, HaroTd- Saratoga City Attorney ATKINSON FAI3ASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL B. SMITH 660 WEST DANA, STREET ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL P.O. BOX 279 HAROLD S. TOPPEL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. (415) 967 -5941 STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Amendment to Design Review Ordinance DATE: April 18, 1988 zp_g?F -Do1 J. M. ATKINSON (1692 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (.1915 -1979) At the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 22, 1988, there was a consensus to amend the design review ordinance to require design review approval of any single story structure over 18 feet in height. The proposed ordinance will accomplish this amendment by inserting a new item (3) in paragraph (a) of Section 15- 45.060. Items (4) through (8) have been renumbered but otherwise are identical to the existing ordinance. With the proposed amendment, any single story structure, wherever located, would require design review if the structure exceeds 18 feet in height. In contrast, a multi -story structure exceeding 18 feet in height would not automatically require design review approval by the Planning Commission. The multi -story structure must fall within one of the other categories listed in this paragraph (e.g., located upon a hillside lot; conversion of a single -story to multi- story; design review required as a condition of subdivision approval; gross floor area in excess of 6,000 square feet, etc.). It is therefore conceivable that the applicant may be able to construct a multi -story structure by obtaining administrative approval -from staff, but could not build a single - story structure over 18-feet in height without obtaining design review approval from the Planning Commission. "0, HaroTd- Saratoga City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 71. C AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SMISECTION 15- 45.060(a) CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT .FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (a) of Secton 15- 45.060 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows:. "(a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single- family main structure or accessory structure in any A, R -1, HC -RD or. NHR district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any multi -story main or accessory structure to be constructed upon a hillside lot. (2) Any conversion of a single -story structure to a multi -story structure, except where such conversion does not result in any exterior modifications to the existing structure beyond the installation of skylights in the roof. (3) Any single -story structure over eighteen feet in height. (4) Whenever design review is specifically required under the terms or conditions of any tentative or final subdivision map, building site approval, use permit, variance or conditional rezoning. (5) Any main structure to be constructed upon a lot having a net site area of less than 5,000 square feet. (6) Whenever, as a result of the construction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square feet. (7) Whenever, as a result of the construction or expansion, the allowable floor area may be exceeded pursuant to Subsection 15- 45.030(d) of this Article. (8) Whenever, in the opinion of the Planning Director, the construction or expansion of a main or accessory structure may be incompatible with the neighborhood, or may create a perception of excessive bulk, or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may adversely affect the natural environment." SECTION 2: If, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or -1- unconstitutional, such decision shall nc- affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection; sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective 'of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s* s s . • _ ..._ The above and, foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law., was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 19889 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK -2- RES -ND Saratoga c c DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negati_ve Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No.AZO -88 -001 The undersigned, Direc "tor of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 1S 063 through 1S06S and Section 15070 of the California. Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AZO 88 -001 Amendment to the Design Review Ordinance of the City of Saratoga (subsection 15- 45.060(a) of the CAty Code) requiring design review approval from the Planning Commission for _._• any single -story structure over eighteen feet in height. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR t• IEGATTVE•DECLARATION The proposed amendment is more restrictive. than the current regulations. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of , 198 YUCHUEK HSIA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEET_ ING APRIL 27, 1988 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Bill Peretti, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga,. commented as follows: Main concern was the unusual sequence of�events surrounding development of this site - . operty was cleared and leveled for development before cancellation oEthe Williamson Act There was no Environmental Impact Report - There were,no roads to the site; drainage for this project would go through his back yard WM16c� of opposed to the project, he wished a'resolution of issues addressed above Mr. William,T. Brooks, 20230 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, cited.Staff Report Exhibit "A ": Con- ditions 40. and�41. and commented as follows: - Noted the considerable diversity in equestrian trail easements between various subdivisions - Condition 41. t-a be modified to 8 ft. easement and all weather surfaces required on the trails Asked that overall.view of equestrian trail easements be done by the Commission Asked that citizen involvement be,allowed in the review of these easements Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited concerns regarding the lack of an Environinentat:Iinpact Report - The crux of the issue was drainage; such was the causre of the initial problems - Topography of the subdivision was the same as the`land slippage that had occurred - Strongly urged that an Envirorimeental Impact Report be completed Mr. Papken Der Torossiav, 21978 V atRegina /s6atoga, commented as follows: - Was favorable to the development of'four�lots Was concerned regarding the drainage .,pipe; should such break, his house would be flooded - Had already had land slides in his rear-property; was concerned regarding further sliding Ms. Rosemary Neuman, 22641 Mr. Eden Rd.)Mted her concerns regarding the project. Mr. Vince Garrod requested information on-the proposal under consideration. Mr. Tobin stated that an Environmental Assessment .was'completed; approval of the proposal requested. In response to.Chairwoman Guch, he reviewed agreements with the Water District. The City Attorney provided additional information on' the proposed water source. Mr. Kohler stated thnl an Environmental Impact Report had not bc�i geompleted. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11,35 P.M. Passed 4 -0. If Commissioner Siegfried suggested that a site visit would be beneficial. Commissioner Burger stated that she was not concerned regarding the proposedadevelopment. In response to her question, the City Attorney confirmed that there was an Environmental Assessment for the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract and for this Application; a Negative Declaration was also required for the Item under consideration. However, an /,E,-n onmenta l Impact Report had not been completed. missioner Harris concurred that a site visit was desirable at this time. woman Guch added that she was favorable to the request for a -four lot subdivision. BURGERMARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE•SD -87 7008 TO MAY 11, 1988. Passed 4 -0.`^ 14. AZO -88 -001 City of Saratoga, an ordinance amending Section 15- 45.060 (a) adding a requirement that any single -story structure over 18 ft. in height receive design review approval by the Planning Commission. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of April 18, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:45 P.M. There were no speakers. BURGERMARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11:45 P.M. Passed 4 -0. BURGERIHi RRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -88 -001. Passed 4-0.