Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1986 City Council Agenda packetAGENDA Buy, NO. 10 DATE 2/11/86 (2/19/86) DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST FOR YIELD SIGN AT DOUGLASS LANE AND SHADOW OAKS WAY C. Mgr. Issue Scum ary Request for yield sign on Douglass Lane at Shadow Oaks Drive to assign right -of -way. Reconfiguring the entire Douglass, Shadow Oaks, Saratoga Avenue inter- section will be more effective. Recommendation Approve the modification of the intersection per Staff suggestion. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $4500 Exhibits/Attachments Council Action 2/19: Continued to 3/19 for staff report to determine residents' opinions. 3/19: Approved 3/19 memo (attached). Staff Report, including sketch of recommended intersection modification UMW ©ff REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: REQUEST. FOR YIELD SIGN AT DOUGLASS LANE AND SHADOW OAKS WAY DATE: 2-11 -86 COUNCIL MEETING: 2 -19 -86 At a recent Council meeting Councilmember Callon requested Staff to review the intersection of Douglass Lane and Shadow Oaks Way relative to assigning right -of -way by causing Douglass Lane to yield to Shadow Oaks Way. The need for studying the matter of right -of -way in this intersection is because of its unusual configuration. Apparently the intersection of these two streets and their intersection with Saratoga Avenue grew somewhat like Topsy, creating a large, mainly undelineated, expanse of pavement, similar in some respects to the Elva, Canyon View, Reid intersection. Inasmuch as we are studying the intersection, perhaps we should try to eliminate its confusion by modifying it to a more standard configuration, rather than simply a bandaid approach. Attached is a sketch defining how Douglass could be made to intersect Shadow Oaks at right angles, thereby more clearly defining right of -way. It also eliminates the free right lane onto Saratoga Avenue, making that intersection more of a typical right angle type. The areas where asphalt is removed could either be planted and maintained by the City or abandoned back to the fronting property. I would recommend that such a modification of the intersection be approved and implemented. If the Council does not feel that such a modification is warranted, then Staff should be directed to prepare the appropriate resolution, providing for Douglass Lane traffic to yield to Shadow Oaks way traffic. RSS:cd Attachment Robe 8 Shook Director of Community Development EX end D.Y. 4.0 8e,.n n Ori vewa Sh1AD J OA 1(5 r o 1 1 U 2 0 'VoCdr REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF SHADOW OAKS WAY /DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA AVENUE INTERSECTION Attached is the Staff analysis of the replies obtained thus far from our inquiry into the neighborhood relative to the subject modification. As can be seen, the proposal has met with favor from four of the five respondents, with some suggested modifica- tions. Most of these suggestions have been incorporated into our recommendation, with the exception of reducing the speed zoning on Saratoga Avenue. We would, therefore, recommend modification of the intersection as shown on the sketch attached to the Staff Report dated March 13, 1986. RSS:cd Attachment ,i'40 a4wkefe/ fr )6 V-1,e, zpzz4,, Robert Shook City Engineer DATE: 3 -13 -86 COUNCIL MEETING: 3 -19 -86 UTV'T ©2 0 C� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer DATE: 3- 1. --86 FROM: Senior Engineering Technician SUBJECT: MODIFICATION. OF SHADOW OAKS WAY /DOUGLASS LANE/ SARATOGA AVENUE INTERSECTION The staff proposal to modify the intersection of Shadow Oaks Way /Douglass Lane /Saratoga Avenue, resulting from a request for a yield sign on Douglass Lane at Shadow Oaks Way, was presented to the City Council at its meeting of February 19, 1986. The City Council requested that this matter be continued to the meeting of March 19, 1986, after notifying all affected residents of the proposed modification. Letters were sent out to sixty (60) residents in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. As of March 13, 1986 we have received four (4) response letters and one (1) telephone call concerning this proposed modification. The results of these responses were as follows: One (1) completely against the proposal; One (1) completely in favor of the proposal; Three (3) in favor of the proposal with suggestions of in- stalling stop or yield signs on Douglass Lane at Shadow Oaks Way, moving the double yellow stripe on Shadow Oaks Way to the north, clearing shrubbery back along Saratoga Avenue, placing advance street name signs for Shadow Oaks Way on Saratoga Avenue, and reducing the speed limit on Saratoga Avenue. Based on the original staff proposed modification, I recommend that the same be approved with the addition of a yield sign on Douglass Lane at Shadow Oaks; moving the double yellow stripe on Shadow Oaks over to the center of the street, which would allow more room for vehicles entering Shadow Oaks Way off of Saratoga Avenue; clearing the shrubbery back along Saratoga Avenue, southwesterly of Shadow Oaks Way; and installing advance street name signs on Saratoga Avenue at both approaches to Shadow Oaks Modification of Shadow Oaks Way/ Douglass Lane /Saratoga Avenue 3 -13 -86 Page 2 Way. If the speed limit on Saratoga Avenue were to be reduced from 35 MPH to 25 MPH as suggested by one (1) respondent, it could not be enforced as it wouldn't be supported by an engineering survey. Attached is a sketch showing the proposed modification with the recommended suggestions incorporated, along with the letters from the respondents. ED:cd Attachments Erman Dorsey Senior Engineering Technician S4RA A E AiffiAp edOt'e" QsvPafen 250' In se. G 7 (SH4aow 0.44-.7 Iniy) �l/osig •.fy a W /p. Eris ye y ..fi. Tr SAP?" er eo "Oa purrs E'rlsX�'� .Q 9 ma o e.8. R39 AVE- 4. 4 2 "O ck Aapno /l (nere/e c1 SCALE: 20 'N ti %nsftt!/ G 7 SNAD y. Along w4h a Wio to (sln, S!g 1 /�arcti /3, 986 1 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Attention: City Council Subject: Modification of Douglass Lane/Saratoga Ave.Intersection Dear Councilmembers: We were notified by R. S. Shook regarding modifications of the intersection on Douglass Lane and Saratoga Avenue. We reside on Woodview Lane and use this entry into our development. We are well satisfied with the existing arrangement because it affords a wide entry to a poorly lit street which is bordered on the Douglass Lane side by a ditch. If this entry were made narrow and if existing landmarks were moved, it would be very difficult to see the entry at night (as is now the case with the other end of Shadow Oaks Way). In order to make a left turn from Saratoga Avenue it would become necessary to come to a full stop in order to identify the entry. This would be a hazard to traffic on Saratoga Avenue in both directions. Once the turn were negotiated, one would be lucky to have missed the ditch (unless the ditch were marked with a brightly painted fence). At this time it is possible for two cars to make right and left turns simultaneously from Shadow Oaks Way because of the width of the road. Once the street exit were made narrow, there would arise a risk to the exiting car from incoming traffic which was trying to avoid the ditch. There is at present no doubt that the traffic on Saratoga Avenue has the right-of-way and there is no way that orderly movement-mf_ vehicular traffic can be enhanced by making the road narrower. We are fortunate to have a wide entry to Douglass Lane and request that matters be left alone. We are convinced that any change in width would be detrimental to safety and orderly traffic flow on both, SaratOga Avenue and Shadow Oaks Way. Surely street maintenance funds could be better spent on resurfacing than on reducing street width. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely ,80 LuJA.._ Dr. Mrs. A. P. Hardt qd,„,„____ 14150 Woodview Lane Saratoga, Ca 95070 Copy to Mr. R. S. Shook, City Engineer =~p^~ �y MAR 0 1986 6 March 1986 ROBERT S SHOOK CITY ENGINEER 13777 FRS! I TVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA. 95070 DEAR MR SHOOK A FEW MINOR SUGGESTIONS 14031 SHADOW OAKS WAY SARATOGA, CA. 95070 MARCH 7, 1986 REF: MODIFICATION OF SHADOW OAKS WAY DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA AVE INTERSECTION. THIS MEMO I S IN RESPONSE TO YOUR NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 4, 198o IN WHICH YOU DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE ABOVE. INTERSECTION. SINCE I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MARCH 19TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING I THOUGHT I WOULD GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS IN THE FORM OF A MEMO. FIRST I WANT TO BE ON RECORD THAT SOME ACTION OF THE TYPE YOU PROPOSE IS VERY MUCH IN ORDER AND THAT I AM GLAD TO SEE THE CITY TAKING THIS ACTION. THE CONVERSION FROM A THREE STREET INTERSECTION TO A TWO STREET INTERSECTION WILL HELP A GREAT DEAL. 1. INSTALL A YIELD SIGN WHERE DOUGLASS LANE INTERSECTS WITH SHADOW OAKS WAY. REASON: THERE IS A CURRENT PROBLEM AS CARS ON DOUGLASS LAND AND SHADOW OAE,:S WAY CONVERGE AS THEY APPROACH SARATOGA AVE. THIS SIGN WOULD ESTABLISH WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY CONSIDER MOVING THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF SHADOW OAKS WAY MORE TOWARD THE RIGHT SIDE OF SHADOW OAKS WAY AS YOU APPROACH SHARATOGA AVE. REASON: MUCH OF TODAY'S PROBLEM IS CAUSED BY PEOPLE "CUTTING THE CORNER." AS THEY ENTER, SHADOW OAKS WAY FROM SARATOGA AVE WHEN TRAVELING FROM THE NORTH ON SARATOGA AVE. LIKEWISE THE PROBLEM IS CREATED BY PEOPLE ENTERING SARATOGA AVE FROM SHADOW OAKS WAY "CUTTING THE CORNER" WHEN TRYING TO TURN TOWARD THE VILLAGE. MAKING THE CENTER LINE SLIGHTLY OFF CENTER TOWARD THE RIGHT SIDE OF SHADOW OAKS SHOULD HELP. P QUESTION: WILL THE STREET SIGN ON SARATOGA AVE BE CHANGED TO READ SHADOW OAKS WAY WITH THIS NEW ARRANGEMENT? THAT WOULD SEEM APPROPIATE. IN THE EVENT THAT YOU GET TO MANY OBJECTIONS TO YOUR PROPOSAL. YOU MIGHT CONSIDER AS AN ALTERNATE TO CONSTRUCT AN ISLAND (2 -3 FT WIDE) IN THE MIDDLE OF SHADOW OAKS WAY WHERE IT MEETS SHARATOGA AVE AND PUT A YIELD SIGN ON EITHER DUGLASS WAY OR SHADOW OAKS WAY WHERE THESE TWO STREETS MEET. THIS APPROACH WOULD MAKE IT UNNECESSARY TO REMOVE THE PAVEMENT AND CONSTRUCT THE CURBS. THIS MIGHT BE A MORE ECONOMICAL APPROACH BUT I DON'T FEEL IT IS AS GOOD AS YOUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. RECEIVED MAR 11 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN CONCLUSIION I FAVOR THE MODIFICATION. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE NARROW SECTION OF SARATOGA AVE FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THE CENTER OF TOWN IS AN EXTREMELY UNSAFE STRETCH OF ROAD. THE CITY SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON IMPROVING THE VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSWALKS. ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT PEOPLE WALKING THE COUNTY LIBRARY PLUS THE CHILDREN OF ST ANDREWS, AND SACRED HEART USE THE FOOT PATHS, EVERYTHING POSSIBLE SHOULD EE DONE TO KEEP THESE PATHS AS WIDE AS POSSILBE AND WELL MAINTAINED. SEVERAL STRETCHES OF THESE PATHS ARE CURRENTLY OVERGROWN AND IN NEED OF REPAIR. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON MY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO GIVE ME A CALL. YOURS TRULY o‘e_t EUGENE W O'RORKE PHONE 867 -9740 SARATOG Ldoe'or/Swore., RECEIVED MAR 111986 City of Saratoga COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Saratbga, Ca 95070 14060 Shadow Oaks Way Saratoga, Calif. 95070 March 10, 1986 Attn: Mr. Robert Shook Subject: Douglass Lane /Shadow Oaks Way/ Dear Mr. Shook: Saratoga Ave. interjection We were g.ad to have your letter of March 4 and to see that the City is aware of the problems at that intersection. Having lived on Shadow Oaks Way for the past 30 years, I feel qualified to comment on the proposed changes to the intersection. There are several traffic problemssat that point, and the proposed changes do not appear to solve them- in fact, they may do more harm than good. The first of these is for drivers coming down Douglass Lane and turning left into Shadow Oaks Way. They must be alert to traffic turning into Shadow Oaks Way from Saratoga Ave; consequently, they usually look to the left and are often not aware of traffic on their right. This problem would be improved by the suggested change, but it could also be improved by a STOP or YIELD sign on Douglass Lane on the right approaching the intersection. Another problem is that of a vehicle turning left into Shadow Oaks Way from Saratoga, Ave. If the intersection is clear there is no problem; however, if there is a vehicle on ::shadow Oaks 'vJay waiting to turn left into Saratoga Ave.,the southbound driver onnSaratoga Ave. must turn into a nar['ow lane. This becomes difficult at night at the intersection is not lighted and the driver may be looking into the headlights of two or more approaching vehicles. Further, the driver on Shadow.Oaks-:Wagahas' trouble seeing traffic approaching from hi's left because of the large oak tree and other shrubbery, and is inclined to pull as far into Saratoga Ave. as possible, making the turn even more difficult for the approaching car. This problem would not be alleviated by the proposed change which would narrow the intersection, but would be made more acute. 0 (e .for y td A companion problem is that faced by a driver northbound on Saratoga Ave. and turning right into Shadow Oaks day. He too cannot see around the corner and must or should- slow down before "_.turning. People who are not familiar with the area do not expect an intersection there and do not anticipate that a car ahead will slow down for a right turn. Furthermore, this is the narrowest point on Saratoga Ave. Ultimately, it may be necessary to tkke down the two oak.trees (painful as that may be0, clear out the undergrowth, and ,open the intersection up. But before doing that, rather than cutting down the width of the intersection as proposed and making all turns more difficult I suggest the following: 1.Place a STOP or YIOLD sign on Douglass Lane, as suggested above. Qfc 2. Place an INTERSECTION sign on Saratoga Ave about one half a block south of the intersection for northbound traffic. No 3. Reduct the speed limit to 25 mph. through that area of Saratoga Ave., add post it conspicuously. F Move the centerline stripe toward the north side of Shadow Oaks Way, thereby enlarging the westbound lane and disccburaging drivers from cutting the corner" when turning left into Shadow Oaks Way. 9 Clear out some bf the shrubbery around the 40" oak tree on the corner. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 4. F. C Jr. 1 March 4, 1986 Dear Resident: The City is proposing to make some modifications to the inter- section of Douglass Lane /Shadow. Oaks Way /Saratoga Avenue in order to improve the traffic safety thereof. Attached is a sketch showing the proposed modification. This modification is to more clearly define the intersection for the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and the assignment of right -of -way. This proposal is scheduled to be presented to the City Council at its meeting of March 19, 1986 for approval. If you have any comments on the modifications, please respond in writing or plan to attend the meeting. Yours very t Robert Shook City Engineer RSS:cd Attachment C r MW ©0 r U j 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: RECEIVED Linda Callon Martha Clevenger MAR 131986 Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT David Moyles W ��ec/a�,4o ate a 4 04-ye._ Wuw l am. ttk y A CO* 4 7 CGU4 GGC16 0a,E S s" deiRAro 6 A Efi %�farp LSOe•e, Rsvcnrenf Z „4 VC AGENDA BILL NO. 101°7 DATE: 2/11/86 (2/19/86) DEPAMENT: Community Development N--- N- N- N----- ..m1 -M- .111--- .1 -N S SARATOGA GLEN PLACE /SARATOGA AVENUE INTERSECTION Issue Summary Residents' request for traffic control at Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Avenue intersection. Initial request was for turning movement restriction through median opening. Request has changed to full or partial closure of Saratoga Glen Place to eliminate bypass of Cox /Saratoga signal. Traffic study does not support request for closure or any major modifica- tion of intersection. Approval of recommendation will cause residents of Palo Oaks to either travel further north on Saratoga Avenue to make a U -turn or circle around _,Cox .Saratoga Creek Drive Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga. Avenue to access their street. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. MV- northbound traffic. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $100 Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution MV- 2. Traffic count sketches 3. Results of Palo Oaks inquiry 4. Questionnaire and results of Saratoga Glen Place inquiry 5. Previous Staff Reports Council Action 2/19: Approved Resolution MV 164. CITY OF SARATOGA which prohibits U -turns and left turns for 6. ,Original petition from area follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION PROHIBITING U-TURNS AND LEFT. TURNS ON SARATOGA AVENUE AT SARATOGA GLEN PLACE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as SECTION I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following designated portion of Saratoga Avenue in the City of Saratoga shall prohibit the U -turn and left turn movements of vehicles: DIRECTION OF LOCATION TRAFFIC AFFECTED Saratoga Glen Place Northeasterly bound This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs are erected. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of February 1986, by the following vote: CITY CLERK MAYOR REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: UMW OOQ 0 °'V DATE: 2 -11 -86 COUNCIL MEETING: 2 SARATOGA GLEN PLACE /SARATOGA AVENUE 'INTERSECTION In November I submitted a report to you regarding the intersection of Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Avenue, which was generated as a result of a petition from Saratoga Glen Place residents (copy attached). Staff then recommended construction of a left turn lane to protect the northbound Saratoga Avenue traffic turning unto Saratoga Glen Place. Staff was directed to meet with respresentatives of the area to discuss the matter. At the request of the residents the meeting was delayed until January. When we met they submitted the results of a questionnaire (copies attached) which showed a strong preference for full or partial closure of Saratoga Glen Place at Saratoga Avenue. They subsequently submitted results of the inquiry of Palo Oaks Court on how they access their street (copy attached). The Saratoga Glen residents expressed the feeling that this street was being used heavily by vehicles bypassing the signal at Cox and Saratoga Avenues, indicating that traffic would be unfamiliar with the neighborhood and unconcerned with safety in the area. In an effort to verify these concerns, this office performed morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts at this intersection and evening peak hour counts of vehicles that would be using Saratoga Glen Place as a bypass of the Cox /Saratoga Avenue signal. Copies of those two hour counts are attached. During the 7:00 -9:00 a.m. turning movement study the total turning activity was 26 vehicles. The majority of the turns were Saratoga Glen Place originated traffic turning left onto Saratoga Avenue, a maneuver they would not be able to make if that street was fully or partially closed. This is true for the two vehicles that turned right into this street. All pedestrians were adult walkers or joggers. Report to Mayor Re: Saratoga Glen Place/ Saratoga Ave. Intersection February 11, 1986 Page 2 During the 4:00 -6:00 p.m. turning movement the total turning activity was 41 vehicles. The observer was not stationed so as to see if the 38 turns into and out of Saratoga Glen had a trip end on that street. However, the observations in the next described study would support the position that those trips originated or ended on Saratoga Glen Place. As in the morning count, the large majority (31) of these movements could not be made if the street were fully or partially closed. Again the pedestrians observed were adults. The last movement study was a study to count those vehicles which turned right from Saratoga avenue onto Saratoga Glen Place and then continued through to then make a right turn onto Cox Avenue, i.e. bypass signal at Cox /Saratoga. In the 4:00 -6:00 p.m. two hour evening peak there were 3 such movements, which is certainly nominal. It should be noted that during these p.m. peak periods the right turn vehicles at Cox were using the shoulder lane. This seems to fill the need for those wishing to go west on Cox Avenue. The conclusion reached as a result of these counts is that there is no justifiable traffic engineering reason to close, fully or partially, Saratoga Glen Place. I therefore recommend against such a drastic move. If the Council were inclined to approve such closure a traffic study of the entire area would be in order to determine the impact. Based on this study, I would rescind my earlier recommendation for a protected left turn lane. Instead I would recommend that left and U turns be prohibited northbound as they already are southbound. There is no significant traffic accident history because such moves are allowed but there is potential for such accidents. In addition, property owners on each corner should be required to trim trees and bushes to improve sight distance around these corners. RSS:cd Shook tor of Community Development c/ TY OF SARA DEPARTMENT OF COMMON /TY DEVELOPMENT INTERSECT/ON TURN /N6 MOVEMENT cst 0 gmvP t% cc. o STUDY TWO HOUR A. M. -TOTAL 7 7 DATE: 2/5/86 DAY: Wedne5dZ7 T /ME: FRO/: 0700 TO: 0 900 WEA THER: aercast t'o Zg tz A7iers RECORDED 8Y= f _Dorsey REMARKS: /4 01' /6 ve' c/e eXi /in7 2/ 7& &den P were obseived Io oriq, /e on 5Qraz090 £fit! Pl. G// Y Uf 0. U (7/1 DEPARTMENT OF COMM/UN /T Y DELIEL OPMEA/ T IN TERS E C T /0N TURN /N6 MOVEMENT TWO HOUR 14A4-TOTAL STUDY DATE= 2 /4/ 86 DAY: Tuesd'ry 77ME: FRO/ TO: /800 WEATHER: dear/Dry /a beomity cAttdr RECORDED BY: -Docsey REMARKS: DePA RTMENT OF COMMON /TY DEVELOPMENT INTERS E C T/ ON TURN /N6 MOVEMENT" OMB STUD Y T R M.-TOTAL' SARA TO6 A GLEN ill, 1L. COX AVE DATE: 2/6/e6 DAY: 77n rso/ay TIME: FROM: /600 TO: /800 WEATHER: C /eor /Dry fo hemminj c %Tid RECORDED 8Y: ey REMARKS 77e sr�ajo t& c% �y of vehis( /O tarn if7 Sora /o9a Xve. or�f0 Sar a FPM PI.J ever fer 2/,, 4 k t on Sara/o91.6/en or C6 or farnec r f. on /c, AV 5ara-faga Cr. Or. RECEIVED JAN 0 8 1985 Robert Shook, Director of Community Developm 13777 Fruitvale Ave. bit G IUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Saratoga Saratoga 95 070 RE: Saratoga Glen Place traffic control January 6, 1986 Dear Mr. Shook: At your suggestion, I have enclosed the results of the Palo Oaks survey. A copy of the poll has been sent to the City Council also. The residents of Palo Oaks were asked to select which of the access routes they currently used most frequently; the results are seen on the enclosed sheet. I inadvertently presented an erroneous figure to you during our meeting this morning; the corrected percentage appears at the bottom of the survey page. Looking forward to a mutually satisfactory resolution, I am sincerely yours, Mrs. Marcia Fariss cc: Saratoga City Council Summary: Traveling north on Saratoga Avenue, Palo Oaks residents use the following method to enter their court: 1. U -turn at Saratoga Glen Place, then South on Saratoga Ave. 2. Left turn(West) at Cox to Saratoga Creek, then East on Saratoga Gien to Saratoga Avenue, making a right to Palo Oaks. 3. U -turn at Wood Dell, then South on Saratoga Avenue to Palo Oaks. First choice: Second choice: Address Method Method 1. 18950 #3 2. 18972 #1 #2 3. 18994 #1 #2 (second driver) #2 4. 18993 #2 #1 rarely 5. 18981 #1 #2 6. 18979 #2 7. 18967 #1 #2 8. 18955 9. 18943 #1 #2 10. 18931 f C .o 3 X Unless otherwise noted, preferences represent the method utilized by all drivers in the household. First choice; 5 for U -turn at Saratoga Glen Place 3 use Cox Avenue and circle around S.G.P. Second choice: 5 use L turn at Cox Avenue and circle around S.G.P. 1 uses U -turn at S.G.P.( "rarely There was 1 vote for the stack lane left /Uaturn at Wood Dell As you can see, there were more total votes for Cox Avenue -Sar. Creek Sar. Gien P1. -Sar. Ave. circle around for Palo Oaks access(8 vs 6 for U -turn at Ser. Gien P1). Percentages are: :1*Wse Cox, 43 %use U -turn. s OUR /m+* /��v u,, HAVE THEIR OUR .nc�n DISADVANTAGES. IN UR OPINION ALTERNATIUVES #5,6 AND 7 WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE MOST. #2 WOULD SEEM, AT FIRST GLANCE TO BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. PLEASE RANK THEM ACCORDING TO YOUR PREFERENCE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. PLACE A "1" IN THE SPACE NEXT TO YOUR FIRST CHOICE, A "2" NEXT TO YOUR SECOND 2) "NO-U-TURN"/"NO LEFT TURN" SIGNS FOR NE BOUND SARATOGA AVE TRAFFIC. THERE ALREADY IS A "NO-U-TURN" SIGN AT THE MEDIAN FOR SW BOUND TRAFFIC.(THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM TO ENFORCE; MOTORISTS MAY IGNORE THE SIGNS WHEN FEELING IT NECESSARY TO ����'��'MAKE THE MANEUVER TO GAIN ACCESS co� /u SARATOGA GLEN PL OR PALO OAKS COST: CT. �u�/� APPROX. ��mm.uU. 3) CLOSE THE MEDIAN OPENING COMPLETELY. COST:ABOi|Ty��m m THIS WON'T PROTECT PEDESTRIANS FROM CARS TUR|IN� RIGHT STREET FROM SARATOGA AVE. TO ,=un o�n�/u�� ov� 4) CONSTRUCT A LEFT TURN LANE. THIS PLAN ALTHOUGH FAVORED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, INCREASE ."c /n�rr�� �m�^m,���' uu o �n^ccrr n^. SARA TOGA ON �pm�|u�A GLEN PL AND MAKE THE STREET EVEN MORE DANGEROUS FOR PEDESTRIANS(PLEASE REMEMBER THE CHILDREN). C T mx�m�. �u� ABOUT $10,000 WHILE DESTROYING A TREE AND PART OF THE MEDIAN 5) CUL-DE-SAC (CLOSE OFF) E'F''- '---^~^�upu�n�' GLEN PL. AT SARATOGA AVE. COST: i END OF SARATOGA 1,000 6) SAC THE EAST END OF SARATOGA o, �u�_uc �mu o� ��/�m PL AND MAKE A 'K�LTURN ONLY LANE THROUGH ""�c r� RESIDENTS OF PALO CENTRAL MEDIAN FOR THE ���,�u�m|�, V� �HLU OAKS COURT. COST:$11,000 7) USE "NO-U-TURN" AND "NO LEFT TURN SIGNS" THROUGH H THE MEDIAN, BUT ALSO MAKE OUR STREET ONE-WAY (TRAFFIC COULD TRAVEL TOWARD SARATOGA AVE BUT NOT FROM SARATOGA AVE) TO AL.- OW RESIDENTS OF PALO OAKS CT TO GAIN ACCESS TO SARATOGA AVE EN ROUTE TO THEIR STREET WHILE REDUCING TRAFFIC ON OUR STREET. COPY OF THE STAFF MEMORANDUM DESCRIBING THE ALTERNATIVES IS AVAILABLE PLEASE CONTACT ELLEN MASTMAN, MARCIA FARISS OR DOROTHY OLSEN IF YOU WISH TO READ THEM AS THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 1) DO NOTHING INCREASED TRAFFIC WILL MEAN INCREASED USE OF OUR STREET TO AVOID THE LIGHT ON COX UNLESS WE CLOSE THE STREET. REMEMBER, IF THERE IS AN EXIT FOR HIGHWAY 85 NEAR HERE AND AN INCREASE IN COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC, IT WILL BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN ONTO SARATOGA AVENUE FROM OUR STREET ANYWAY.. December 27 1985 Robert Shook, Director of Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: At the November 7, 1985 City Council meeting, Mayor Clevenger recommended that the residents of Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Glen Court be polled regarding their preferences for traffic control at Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Avenue. Residents were asked to present their first, second and third choices; however several expressed only a first choice. The results below represent 93% of the homeowners: 1. No change 4 9% 2 6% 2. No Left No U for n'bSeratoga 4 9% 2 6% 3. Solid Median on Saratoga Av 2 5%. 5 3E% 4. Left Turn Lane on Saratoga Av 5 11% 3 8% 2 14% 5. Cul-de-Sac: Close east SBP 24 55% 3 8% 6. Part.cul -de -sac(exit only) 4 9% 25 69% 7. SOP One-Way Eastbound 7 50% 8. Remove trees from median 1 2% 9. No U for NB Saratoga 1 3% Total 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 44 3 No responses, even with repeated attempts 36 14 Additional recommendations and comments included: 1. Trimming of evergreens North of Saratoga Glen Place on Saratoga Avenue to improve vehicular and pedestrian visibility. 2. Installation of large concrete planters at East end of Saratoga Glen Place instead of curbs or fences. 3. Installation of a signal at Cox and Saratoga Creek. 4. Reduction of Saratoga Avenue speed limit to 35mph. 5. Current and future construction on Saratoga Avenue(Cox Avenue and Paul Masson) and proposed Highway 85 traffic will so greatly increase congestion that shortly there will be no Saratoga Avenue access for us anyway. Several respondents included diagrams for a complete or partical cul-de-sac design; these are available upon request. Obviously the vast majority of residents do not accept the City recommendation of a stack lane with a Left-U-turn sign. We want to decrease Saratoga Glen traffic, not increase it 2 7_C5 V 3�� u^/ 2 Your willingness to implement your constituents's desires wiil significantly improve our safety and peace of mind Representing the residents of Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Glen Court, I am Very truly yours, 14 -j r see attached survey form AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 11 -1 -85 (11-7-85) DEPAREMBU Community Development Issue Summary signage or configuration. Do nothing No turns allowed Close median Staff recommends construction Reca p a o o x m imately $10,000. Conceptual approval to left turn lane area residents to discuss. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $10,000 Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo from Community Development 2. Staff memo dated 10 -13 -85 3. 11 -15 -84 Petition 4. 4 -17 -85 Petition Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJD'r: SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA GLEN PLACE INTERSECTION Residents have petition for modification Staff study defines 5 alternatives. Director dated 11 -1 -85 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. of intersection, either Construct left turn lane Close easterly end of Saratoga Glen. Place of left turn lane at a cost of and direct Staff to meet with OIMMIM REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA GLEN PLACE INTERSECTION Several inquiries and requests have been made by area residents for modification of this intersection, ranging from closure to changing the traffic control signing. Staff has reviewed this matter and developed five alternatives as follows: 2 No turns allowed 3 Close median 4 Construct left turn lane 5 Close easterly end of Saratoga Glen Place. The Staff report, which is attached, describes the alternatives. Our conclusion is that the best solution from a traffic standpoint would be to construct a left turn lane. To do so would require the removal or relocation if possible of a healthy 14" oak tree. This conclusion is not consistent with the petitioners' request but I believe it deals with the safety issues that prompted their request. I would suggest you give conceptual approval for the left turn lane and direct Staff to meet with area residents to get their additional input on this matter. RSS:cd 1 Do nothing COMT ©ft 0 DATE:. 11 -1 -85 COUNCIL MEETING: 11 -7 -85 Roberti Shook Director of Community Development 1=f EDO 0 4i 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGR. TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: SARATOGA AVENUE /SARATOGA GLEN PLACE DATE: October 13, 1985 Reviewing the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Glen Place results in five (5) possible options based on citizen requests, accident history, circulation and sound engineering judgement. These options are discussed as follows: 1. Do nothing leave the intersection as is. This option would be acceptable, as presently there are no major contributing factors to justify any modifications, other than citizen complaints concerning a perceived hazard. 2. Place "NO -U- TURN "NO LEFT TURN" signs for NE bound Saratoga Avenue traffic at the median opening (there is already a "NO -U- TURN" sign for SW bound traffic). This option could be implemented very easily, but the results would probably create problems such as continuing enforcement because of motorists ignoring the signs and feeling it necessary to make the manuever to gain access to both Saratoga Glen Place and Palo Oaks Ct. Cost for this option would be less than $100. 3. Close off the median opening completely This option would completely eliminate all potential vehicular conflicts at this location, but would result in motorist frustration. Residents of Palo Oaks Ct. traveling NE on Saratoga Avenue would have to go at least 1/2 mile out of their way via two possible routes in order to reach their homes. This option would cost approximately $10,000 to implement. 4. Construct left turn pocket. From a traffic engineering stance, this option seems to be the most desirable, as it does not interfere with the necessary circulation Saratoga Avenue /Saratoga Glen Place Date 10 -13 -85 Page 2 while at the same time would provide safety for the vehicles making either a left turn onto Saratoga Glen Place or a U -Turn to gain access to Palo Oaks Ct. There have been two accidents, in 41/2 years of rear -end type, primarily caused by inattention of motorists proceeding NE bound on Saratoga Avenue not allowing for vehicles slowing for the left turn /U -turn maneuver without adequate room to completely get out of the through traffic lane. This option would require the removal of a fourteen (14 inch Quercus Ilex (Holly Oak) tree. The cost for this option would probably be about the same as closing the median $10,000. 5 Cul -De -Sac or close off the easterly end of Saratoga Glen Place at Saratoga Avenue. This option could eliminate access to and from Saratoga Glen Place at Saratoga Avenue completely which would definitely reduce the use of the median opening and would stop the use of Saratoga Glen Place as a "cut through" street for non- residents. the impact of this proposal would only affect those residents living on Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Glen court. ACCIDENT HISTORY The cost of this option could range from less than $1,000 (for a barricade type barrier) to $12,500 (for a standard Cul -De -Sac). There have been five (5) accidents at this location in the last four and a half (41/2) years. Of these, there have been two (2) rear enders involving northeast bound vehicles on Saratoga Avenue stopping for vehicles turning left onto Saratoga Glen Place. The other three (3) accidents were; a vehicle involved in a speed contest, driving reckless at a high rate of speed northeast bound crossing over the southwest bound land resulting in a head on collision; an accident involving a driver under the influence making a left turn in front of a southwest bound vehicle; and two northwest bound vehicles involving a left turn from the right hand (outside) lane. The collision diagrams for all of the accidents are attached. Although the review of the above intersection was generated primarily by requests from some of the residents on Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Glen Court, I feel that prior to proceeding further, all the residents of Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga Glen Court and Palo Oaks Court should have an opportunity to look over the options before any action is approved by the City Council. Erman Dorsey, Sr. Engr. Tech. 1NTERSECTI0N: DATE: 7/2. '/8/ ROAD. COND.; Dr/ WEATHER: Cleat" N0. VEHICLES: 3 NO. FATALITIES: 0 N0. INJURIES 2 5 2 zz 5'. „.4 e 'DAY: F, /e/ay TIME: /DOO REPORT•* 744 PREPARED BY: E- r�' 7 DATE: /2 /x vas C OF SARATOGt COLLISION DIAGRA PRIMARY CAUSE` (TYPES OF COLLISIONS Rec4 /ess Driving Wion9 Side o f REMARKS ,speed Con /es 6 //a z 4Noving veJahen —i-• ALAA ENO MAD ON siosswirs ('LSD OUT OF CONTROL LICIT TY11N WANT ANCLC AND av /E'r7 ,2 awe SYMBOLS wOVINE ViNICLU •rr4►}•0ACIIIN4 VIN1CLL y.....•• NONFINVOLVEO VEHICLE r.. EOEOTN IA N Q MRREO YsNICLE E3 FIxso OOJECT FATAL ACCIDENT O INJURY ACCID1Nt INTERSECTION: DATE: /0/23 diZ) ROAD COND.; Dr/ WEATHER: acat NO. VEHICLES: Z NO. FATALITIES: NO. INJuRIES 0 CITY OF SAF7ATOGA COLLISION DIAGR‘ A ND &ie.? ;v4we 5 a L TIME: /2 REPORT#':' 82 -:/DO8 De, r DAT E: /2/9//4 DAY: PREPARED SY: tr 0 4a, s,„,"■ "i7 I/ e 4 pi/ *4k. 4 '11 Ii /1 ii 1 ii f 1/ 1/ 1 f il 4o/ 1/ 4 1/ A q pv 1 4° i, 1/ 4 v 6 7 4 ee i 4; i 1 4 0 1 N /0 A i 4 1% s/ /oi 1 Av e1 4 0 i 4 0 PRIMARY CAUSE follot4/..1 7 Close REMARKS Zna Nen 1/e• n kear -End AgAll EI40 MEAD Oli• •••P"'• IOSIWIPIE 44 ,657:r" out or G01.11101. LiFT TIMM MONT *MIMIC TYPES OF COLLISIONS 0•111■••• AMMO 1/11111414 0• Asap ttOtHMVPIVII,0 VgHICLK IAN L MIMED VetiOCLE roxso 000sor TI) L *Coopr O INJuor ACCIDgmr N0. VEHICLES: 2 NO. FATALITIES: 0 NO. INJURIES 2 CITY OF SARATOG COLLISION DIAGRAM $4.raZ:::9tez AND INTERSECTION: pAT E. //7/83) urs DAY: Tha/ay T TIME: /200 REPOR:' PREPARED BY: E. L rs e DATE /21///84 J4 ROAO COND.; We f WEATHER: Cloudy PRIMARY CAUSE Ir noroper Tu�nia9 REMARKS Ihal /eilho 1 Broadside si 0%r ,d TYPES OF COLLISIONS 00 640°' REAA ENO Ns AD ON afloE�wl�t r'our or oosTAO{. LEFT Twos RIAMT ANAL( S/er SCALE: n'''SYMBOLS MOVIN• VLIUC .$ACKINO VEwICL6 Nor ...•N+ No*inVOi.Vt0 VGIICLL .ice +....P1DtiTA lAM C i MIMEO VEwICLt p /IUD 004 tCT DATAL ACCIDENT IKJlnY ACCIDENT INTERSECTION: S`�e.a •4v f,74 /4 841,' DA r 'so TIME: PREPARED BY: E. Dorsey DATE: 2 C CITY OF SARATOG/ COLLISION DIAGRA c. t -.(41 e i ck- tr ROAD COND.; Dr WEATHER: dear NO. VEHICLES: 2 NO. FATALITIES: O N0. INJURIES 1 C 11aor/ Sti l• 4' I A/ r' h p 8/41, 0 4 ig,t 1? 4 (1 *fir o //i O /y�' PRIMARY CAUSE Urisa(e S,aeed REMARKS �hpf�enfio Rear End Nk it TYPES OF COLLISIONS 1EA1 ENO NIA ON' aloE11w1�E OUT of CONTROL LEFT TWIN L 111111T ANGLE AND r r /ems ,'/ice /52o REPORT DAT E.: /Z //i/84 .i �r r� t SCAL SYMBOLS NOVIN• Yi$1CLE WeOAGNINO VEMICLII .f NON-INVOLVED V[NICLE .,r•.•�0rEDESTEIAN p /ANNE() VENICCE a FIUO OOJ ECT FATAL ACCIDENT o INJDR ACCIDENT PRIMARY CAUSE Unsafe Tura .N80- dna' 1nyr. REMARKS .Broadside 4, 2 f ft ir i t •d ter... ik, /1 TYPES OF COLLISIONS SCA!e S INTERSECTION: 4�do9 AND 2 /Ice DATE: ///3/ DAY: Solara/a TIME /809 PREPARED BY verse,/ DATE ROAD COND.; Dry WEATHER: C /ear NO. VEHICLES: NO. FATALITIES: 0 NO. INJURIES 2 CITY OF SARATOG" COLLISION DIAGRAM —M� AJAX [NO p}f. MAO ON •I Ottwlrt O r OUT OF COMT•0L 1 22 LIFT THAN RANT ANAL( REPORT -4 0 SYMBOLS •■111••■PD MOVIN• /A CK INS VSNICLIt Mor•INVOtVE.o VCNICLI m os.••...►tOAiTAIA M LI 1 VINICL[ a FIItgo GIN g FATAL ACCIOINT O INJURY *coots, Robert Shook, Director Traffic Control City of Saratoga 19566 Alendale Ave. Saratoga 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: c We, the residents of Saratoga Glen Place, after having witnessed yet another serious accident at our intersection, demand that effective traffic control measures be taken immediately. A partial, quick and inexpensive solution would be the immed- iate installation of a "No left or U- turn" sign for north- bound Saratoga Avenue traffic. Investigation of police records would reveal that this intersection has extremely poor visibilty for northbound left and U -turn traffic on Saratoga Avenue; it would also reveal that Saratoga Glen Place drivers have poor visibility of Saratoga Avenue traffic conditions. These factors have con- tributed significantly to the numerous serious accidents at this site. Our lives and those of our neighbors are constantly threatened by poor visibility, left and U -turn traffic. Please install "No left or U- turn "signs for northbound Sara- toga Avenue traffic immediately! Sincerely, the residents of Saratoga Glen Place: RECEIVED NOV 26198 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 15, 1984 RE: Intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Glen Place AGENDA BILL NO. love DATE: 2 -10 -86 (2- 19 -86) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Appeal Peter Eva Kynell (formerly McBain Gibbs, Inc.) 21409 Toll Gate Rd. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Design Review Request for a New Two Story Single Family Residence ISSUE SUMMARY The project was first reviewed in October, 1984. At a later Study Session, the Commission indicated the home should be reduced in size and height and pushed back further from Bougainvillea Court. The item was continued to permit the applicant to change the CC &R's so as to allow a two -story home on this site. The resolution changing the CC &R's was passed by the City Council in July, 1985. In October, 1985, the Commission reviewed the revised plans which were changed using the directions given at a previous Study Session. However, because Staff's method of calculating square footage had changed, the size of the home appeared to increase. The Commission still had concerns over the size and height of the project and the amount of grading proposed. Grading that has already been done on the site was not consistent with any previously approved grading plan. Another Study Session was scheduled, at which the Commission expressed concern over the size of ihe_.h.ome in relation to the small buildable area of the lot. The height and the home's proximity to the edge of the knoll were other concerns. The third revisions were submitted and reviewed in January, 1986. The home was reduced to 6,972 sq. ft., greater setbacks were provided, and the height was reduced. Because the home exceeded the 6,200 sq. ft. standard and the buildable area of the lot was small (later approximated to be 10,000 sq. ft.) the Commission unanimously denied the application. The applicant is appealing because he has reduced the size and height of the home to below that indicated by the Commission at their first Study 'Session on the project. RECOMMENDATION 1. Determine the merits of the appeal and uphold or reverse the Planning Commission decision. 2. Staff recommended denial of A -1016. FISCAL IMPACTS N/A EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Report to Mayor City Council 2. Staff Reports dated 10- 18 -84, 10 715 -85 12- 27 -85. COUNCIL ACTION Initial Dept. Hd. C. Mgr. 3. Appeal Letter 4. Minutes dated 10- 24 -84, 4 -10 -8 10 -23 -85 1/8/86 5. Exhibits 6. Correspondence 2/19: Granted appeal with conditions 3 -2 (Clevenger, Moyles opposed). UTVW ©2 0 °hN REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: DATE: 2 10 86 COUNCIL MEETING: 2 86 A -1016, Peter Eva Kynell (Formerly McBain Gibbs, Inc.), 21409 Tollgate Road Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of a Design Review Request for a New Two Story, Single Family Residence The request for Design Review for a two story, 24 ft. high, 8,060 sq. ft. home was first considered by the Planning Commission at their Regular Meeting on 10- 24 -84. Staff recommended denial of the project as the proposal did not meet the original subdivision approval condition which limited the house on this lot to a single story design. The applicant requested a continuance so that the Commission could make an on -site visit and discuss the project at a Study Session. The on -site visit was made on 11 -3 -84 and at the Committee -of- the Whole Meeting on 11 -6 -84, the Commission gave some indications on changes that should be incorporated in the project. These included reduction of the height to 22 ft. as measured to the pad, reduction of the size of the home to between 7,200 sq. ft. to 7,400 sq. ft., removal of the second story above the garage and pushing back the home an additional 5 ft. from Bougainvillea Court. There was also some discussion on whether the second story balconies should be open or closed. Later, the item was continued to a nonspecific date because the applicant had to change the C.C.& R.'s of the subdivision to allow a two story residence on the lot. The Planning Commission heard the request to change the C.C.& R.'s on 4 -10- 85. At this time, the applicant requested that instead of limiting the home to a single -story design, the height of the home should be limited to 23 ft. instead. The Planning Commission agreed to remove the single story restriction but limited the height of the home to 21 ft. This was the recommendation made to the City Council. At the City Council Meeting on 7- 17-85, a resolution was passed changing the C.C.& R.'s for the McBain and Gibbs subdivision with the following wording: "...no part of the construction on Lots 5 and 6 shall exceed twenty -one feet (21') in height in accordance with the City Ordinances, without written approval of the Committee and the City of Saratoga..." A revised proposal for the home was considered by the Planning Commission on 10- 23 -85. The new proposal was for a 23 ft. high, 8,416 sq. ft., two story home with approximately 2,500 sq. ft. of basement. The applicant objected to Staff's measurement of square footage of the home. Staff's Report to Mayor City Council A -1016, Kynell, Tollgate Rd. Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS /dl /dsc 2 -10 -86 Page 2 method of calculating square footage had changed from when the proposal was first submitted in 1984 and now included double counting stairways and high ceiling areas. Another issue was the grading done on site which was not consistent with the grading plan previously approved for the subdivision. Public testimony was heard in opposition to the project. There was still concern over the size and height of the home and the Planning Commission continued the item so that another Study Session could be scheduled. At the Study Session on 12-17 -85, it was noted that the home's location on the knoll and the small building pad area (later computed to be approximately 10,000 sq. ft.) were significant issues in considering the application. The Commission was concerned that the home exceeded the 6,200 sq. ft. standard, was higher than 21 ft. and was too close to the edge of the knoll. It was noted that there were four new Commissioners since the proposal was first submitted and commented on. The applicant stated he would again revise his plans. The third revisions were submitted and reviewed at the Planning Commission Meeting on 1 -8 -86. The applicant increased setbacks, reduced the size of the home to 6,972 sq. ft., and indicated the height of the home would be reduced to 21 ft. The Commission still had concern that the size of the home exceeded the 6,200 sq. ft. standard, particularly with the small buildable area (estimated at 10,000 sq. ft.) of the lot. The height of the home was discussed as the plans did not scale off to the 21 ft. height indicated by the applicant. The applicant stated that the written dimensions on the plans indicated the 21 ft. height. There was some discussion on whether or not the height measurement should be taken from the top of slab or service walk as indicated on the plans. More public testimony was heard in opposition to the project. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the project. The applicant is appealing the decision as he feels he has reduced the size and height of the home to below the parameters indicated by the Commission at the first Study Session. SUBJECT: HEIGHT: 24' w ©2 sOO o REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION A -1016 McBain Gibbs, Inc. 21409 Tollgate Road, Tract 6628, Lot #5 ACTION REQUIRED: Design Review. Approval for a new two -story single family residence on a hillside lot. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Building and Grading Permits required. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: NHR (HC -RD per the Negotiated Settlement) GENERAL PLAN: DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family SITE DATA PARCEL SIZE: 1.70 Acres NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The frontage along Tollgate Road and the knob of the hill behind the building pad area are covered with grasses. The open space easement to the rear of the parcel is covered with shrubs and oaks. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 39 SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: .5% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 240 Cu. Yds. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 7 Ft. Fill Depth: 0 Ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE SETBACKS: Front: 40 Ft. Rear: 165 Ft. Left Side: 20 Ft. Right Side: 84 Ft. DATE: 10/18/84 Commission Meeting: 10/24/84 Report to Planning Commissi A -1016 McBain Gibbs, Tollgate.i IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Per Applicant Per Staff SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor Including Garage: 2nd Floor: Lower Floor: PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: The project is located in the McBain Gibbs subdivision (SD -1354) and is subject to the conditions of the original subdivision approval. One of these conditions specifically restricts the residence on the subject parcel to a single story design. Staff was only able to reach the applicant late Thursday afternoon (10/18/84) regarding the problem with the two story design that was proposed. Applicant has stated that he will be submitting a letter to request continuance of this item to the next Planning Commission Meeting. Another condition of the subdivision approval should also be noted. A pool on this parcel requires a modification of the Site Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial because the proposed residence does not meet the conditions of the original Building Site Approval. Approved: DL /dsc P.C. Agenda: 10/18/84 1 9,7% or 7,180+ sq. ft. 10,388 sq. ft. excluding pool (15,000 sq. ft. is maximum) Total Gross Floor Area: 8,060 sq. ft. (6,200 sq. ft. is Design Review Standard) Diana Lewis Planner 5,160 sq. ft. 2,090 sq. ft. 810 sq. ft. 10/18/84 Page 2 ret s r t Is E' amc7 go REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant PARCEL SIZE: 1.70 acres GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 800 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 9 Ft. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 0 Ft. HEIGHT: 23 Ft. per Staff, 22 Ft. per Applicant DATE: 10/15/85 COMMISSION MEETING: 10/23/89 APN: S03 -62 -17 APPLICANT: Bob McBain OWNER McBain Gibbs, Inc. APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: A -1016; Lot S, Tr. 6628, 21409 Tollgate Rd. ACTION REQUESTED: Design Review Approval for a new two -story single family residence on a hillside lot. OTHER APPROVALS REOUIRED: Building and Grading Permits. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt EIR For subdivision certified 1O- 25 ZONING: NHR (HC -RD per GENERAL PLAN Residential Hillside Negotiated Settlement) DESIGNATION: Conservation Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant parcels to north and west, residential to the south and .east. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The frontage along Tollgate Rd. and the knoll of the hill behind the building pad area are covered with grasses. The open space easement to the rear of the parcel is covered with shrubs and oaks. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 39% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: .5% PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 40 Ft. Rear: 165 Ft. Left Side: 20 Ft. Right Side: 84 Ft. VIP Report to Planning Commission A -1016, McBain.& Gibbs, Tollgate Rd. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 10,380 sq. ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (Including Garage): Upper Floor:. Lower Floor: TOTAL: Per Staff 4,760 sq. ft. 3,021 sq. ft.* 461 sq. ft. 8,416 sq. ft. *Includes 313 sq. ft. of stairway and open areas, and 470 sq. ft. of high ceiling in living room (15 ft.) ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance except that the home exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard. MATERIALS COLORS: Beige stucco with mission tile roof. 10/15/85 Page 2 HISTORY: This project was first before the Planning Commission at the regular meeting, on 10/24/84. Staff had recommended denial of the project at that time as the project did not meet the original subdivision approval condition that the house on this lot was limited to a single -story design. The applicant requested continuance so that the Commission could make an on -site visit and discuss the project at a Committee -of- the Whole. The on- site visit was made 11/3/84 and at the Committee -of- the -Whole on 11/6/84, the Commission gave some indications on changes that should be incorporated in the project. These included that the height of the home measured to the pad should not exceed 22 ft., the size of the home should be limited to 7,200 7,400 sq. 'ft., the second story above the garage should be eliminated and the house should be pushed back from Bougainvillea Ct. by an additional 5 feet. There was also some discussion on whether the second story balconies should be open or closed. The applicant also had to change the subdivision's CC& R's to allow a two -story residence on the lot. The request to change the CC &R's was discussed at the Planning Commission on 4/10/85. The applicant requested that the height be limited to 23 ft. on this site, but the Planning Commission changed the limit to 21 ft. in its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council passed the resolution changing the CC &R's on 7/17/85. The wording on the amendment states that "no part'of the construction on lots 5 and 6 shall exceed twenty -one feet (21') in height in accordance with the City Ordinances, without written approval of the Committee and the City of Saratoga ANALYSIS CONCERNS: The applicant's revised plans remain similar to the first proposal. The setbacks are unchanged and the size of the home is approximately the same (8,060 sq. ft. was previously proposed but open areas were not included at this time). The applicant did remove the second story above the garage and eliminated the sauna /bathroom adjacent to the game room. The new proposal includes a large unfinished basement (approximately 2,500 sq. ft.). For Report to Planning Commission A -1016, McBain Gibbs,; Tollgate Rd. FINDINGS: -The surrounding elevation balcony. removed. project does 10/15/85 Page 3 this and other grading on site, 800 cu. yds. of cut will be required. Staff has many concerns with the new proposal. First, it is Staff's contention that the Commission has previously stated on two occasions that 21 ft. should be the height limit for a structure on this lot. Although the wording for the amendment to the CC &R's appears to allow some interpretation of this limit, Staff feels that the direction from the Comrnisson on this issue has been clear. Second, the size of the home remains very large for the small buildable area of the lot. Additionally, a basement area is shown which, although basement square footage is exempted from consideration under the Design Review Ordinance, adds a significant amount of possible living area to the home. Third, the home sits on a visible hill top which overlooks the homes on Bougainvillea Court. It is apparent that a two -story structure on this lot has always been a concern, since this lot was originally restricted to a single story structure at the time of subdivision approval. Fourth, the site plan shows up to a 6 ft. high retaining wall along the driveway. This subdivision is limited to a maximum 5 ft. exposed height for retaining walls. Lastly, it is not clear as to whether the grading previously done on this site was ever approved by the City. The existing contours on the site plan submitted do not correspond with those contours on the subdivision's grading plan. Additionally, the driveway is different from that shown on the original grading plan. The immediate concern is the winterization of the previously made cuts. One winter has already passed since this item was first considered and the crumbling of the cut slopes adjacent to the driveway is evident. Staff recommends that, at minimum, if the site was graded without permits, the applicant should apply and pay double fees for a permit. Winterization of any cut slopes,. as required by the City Engineer or Building Inspection Division, shall be in place by 11/15/85. The applicant shall submit plans for erosion control to the Building Inspection Division prior to 11/1/85. 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy: -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the height of the residence is two feet higher than that height suggested by the Planning Commission as a means to mitigate impacts on views. not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the residences in that the second story windows on the east will be partially blocked by the 4 -1 /2 ft. high closed In addition, the second story over the garage has been S6� Report to Planning Commission A -1016, McBain Gibbs, Tollgate Rd. 2. Preservation of_Natural Landscape:, 3. Perception of Excessive 4. Compatible Bulk and Height:, S. Grading and Erosion Control Standards: APPROVED: DLdsc P.C. Agenda: 10/23/86 10/15/85 Page 4 The natural landscape is not being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that the grading previously done resulted in a flat building pad. In addition, more grading is proposed for the project, amounting to 800 cu. yds. The natural landscape shall be preserved in the open space easement. The project will not Minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the home exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard by approximately 2,200 sq. ft. (including open areas). Although the lot is larger than the minimum lot size for this district, the buildable portion of the lot is relatively small. With this and the visibility of the site, the perception of bulk will be excessive. The home is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within S00 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that the existing homes to the east and south are approximately 6,500 sq. ft. or less in gross floor area. The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the topography of the site and the setbacks proposed eliminates this concern. The plan does not incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that it appears that the grading previously done on the site has not had prior City approval. In addition, erosion control measures should be installed to protect all cut slopes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the project per the Staff Report dated 10/15/86 having been unable to make Findings #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. If the Commission can make these findings per Exhibits "B -2, C -2 D -2, and E -2." Staff will be able to provide a list of recommended conditions at your next regular meeting. Diana Lewis Planner CONDITIONS, A -1016, McBain Gibbs, Tollgate Rd. 1. Height of structure, measured in accordance with Ordinance NS -3, Section 14.8 shall not exceed 21 feet. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed 6,200 sq. ft. 3. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the residence (Ordinance 38.121) and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station (Ordinance 1984). Location of the detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. 4. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. 5. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 3:1 slope. 6. Landscaping for screening along the western and southern portions of the home shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall submit the following for Planning Division review and approval. A. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or eleva- tions. B. Landscape plans as required in Condition #6.. 8. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site grading, drainage and foundation plans and provide a written statement to the City certifying he /she has done such a review and that the plans are consistent with the recommendations of his /her report. Building permits will not be issued until this statement is received. 9. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: Driveways having slopes between 12 -1/2% to 1S% shall be surfaced•using 2 -1/2% of A.C. on 6" aggregate base. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17 -1 /2% shall be surfaced using 4" aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. 10. City Geologist shall review and approve the project prior to issuance of building permits. 11. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and Building Inspection Division. Double fees for 13, The basement area 1s not approved_ any illegal grading 'shall be required. 12. Any exposed slopes shall be winterized. Plans for erosion control shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Division for review and approval by no later than 11/1/85. The erosion control measures shall be in place by no later than 11/15/85. 14. Grading to lower the pad of the living room is not approved. *REVISED DATE: 12/27/85 DATE: 10/15/85 COMMISSION MEETING: 10/23/85 CONTINUED TO: 1/8/86 APN: 503 -62 -17 APPLICANT: Bob McBain OWNER: McBain Gibbs, Inc. APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: A -1016; Lot 5, Tr. 6628, 21409 Tollgate Rd. ACTION REQUESTED: :.Design Review Approval for a new two -story single family residence on a hillside lot. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building and Grading Permits. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt EIR for subdivision certified 10 -25 -78 ZONING: NHR (HC -RD per GENERAL PLAN Residential- Hillside Negotiated Settlement) DESIGNATION: Conservation Single Family EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant parcels to north and west, residential to the south and east. PARCEL SIZE: 1.70 acres NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The frontage along Tollgate Rd. and the knoll of the hill behind the building pad area are covered with grasses. The open space easement to the rear of the parcel is covered with shrubs and oaks. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 39% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: .5% GRADINGG REQUIRED: Cut: 800 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 9 Ft. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 0 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 43 Ft. Rear: 173 Ft. Left Side: 24 Ft. Right Side: 88 Ft. Report to Planning Commission A 1016, McBain Gibbs, Tollgate Rd. *HEIGHT: 21 Ft. per Applicant, measured to top of subfloor 22.75 Ft. per Staff, measured to finished grade. 12/23/85 Page 2 *IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 9,876 sq. ft. (does not include pool /spa with decking) Previous Proposal Revised Proposal *SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (Including Garage): 4,760 sq. ft. 4256 sq. ft. Upper Floor:. 3,021 sq. ft.* 2428 sq. ft. Lower Floor: 461 sq. ft. 288 sq. ft. TOTAL: 8,416 sq. ft. 6972 sq. ft. *Includes 313 sq. ft. of stairway and open areas, and 470 sq. ft. of high ceiling in living room (15 ft.) *Includes 182 sq. ft. of stairway and open area on upper floor. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance except that the home exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard. MATERIALS COLORS: Beige stucco with mission tile roof. HISTORY: This project was first before the Planning Commission at the regular meeting on 10/24/84. Staff had recommended denial of the project at that time as the project did not meet the original subdivision approval condition that the house on this lot was limited to a single -story design. The applicant requested continuance so that the Commission could make an on -site visit and discuss the project at a Committee of- the Whole. The on- site visit was made 11/3/84 and at the Committee of- the -Whole on 11/6/84, the Commission gave some indications on changes that should be incorporated in the project. These included that the height of the home measured to the pad should not exceed 22 ft., the size of the home should be limited to 7,200 7,400 sq. ft., the second story above the garage should be eliminated and the house should be pushed back from Bougainvillea Ct. by an additional 5 feet. There was also some discussion on whether the second story balconies should be open or closed. The applicant also had to change the subdivision's CC& R's to allow a two -story residence on the lot. The request to change the CC &R's was discussed at the Planning Commission on 4/10/85. The applicant requested that the height be limited to 23 ft. on this site, but the Planning Commission changed the limit to 21 ft. in its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council passed the resolution changing the CC &R's on 7/17/85. The wording on the amendment states that no part of the construction on lots 5 and 6 shall exceed twenty -one feet (21') in height in accordanace with the City Ordinances, without written approval of the Committee and the City of Saratoga The Commission considered a revised proposal for the home on 10/23/85. Concern over the size and height of the home caused the item to be continued until a study session could be scheduled. Report to Planning Commission A 1016, McBain Gibbs, Tollgate Rd. ANALYSIS CONCERNS: 0) 12/27/85 Page 3 *At the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on 12/17/85, it was noted that the home's location on a knoll and the small building pad area were significant issues in considering the application. Additionally, it was felt that the home should be pushed back further from the edge of the knoll. The applicant stated he would revise his plans to address these concerns. *The applicant's third revision to the plans include moving the garage back 8 feet from its previous location, moving the living room area back by 4 feet, increasing the left side setback. from 20 feet to 24 feet and the front yard setback from 40 feet to 43 feet.' Additionally, the size of the home has been reduced to 6,972 square feet. Part of this reduction is 'due to the applicant lowering the height of the living room and lowering the angle of the roof line above the game room so that these areas would not be double counted. Significantly, the third proposal reduces the living and family rooms, library, garage and game room. Still included, however, is the large (approximately 2500 sq. ft.) basement. Excavation of the basement would result in approximately 800 cubic yards of cut. This is in addition to the large amount of grading already done to the site. The applicant has changed the plans to reduce the size of the home and to push the structure further back from the edge of the .flattened knoll. Despite this, many of the problems that were associated with the other two proposals remain. The height of the residence is still approximately 23 ft. by Staff's measurements. The applicant indicates on the plans that the height is 21 feet as measured from the ridge of the roof to the top of the subfloor or slab. Staff takes measurements down to the finished or natural grade, whichever is lower. The applicant did change the plan for the roof so that the highest ridge is located more toward the center of the house. This is further back than the former proposl but it would not change how the height of the structure is measured. Staff also feels that the direction from the Planning Commission has been clear to limit the height of the home to 21 feet, despite the wording of the CC R's which appears to allow some interpretation of this limit. The size of the home, although reduced, still remains very large for the small buildable area of the lot. The basement which is not included in the gross floor area computations for the house because basements are exempted from inclusion under the Design Review Ordinance, adds a significant amount of potential living area to the home. The structure sits on a visible knoll which overlooks the homes on Bougainvillea Court. It is evident that a two story structure on this lot has always been a concern since this lot was orginally restricted at the time of subdivision approval to have a single -story house. The revised site plan still shows a 6 foot high retaining wall along a portion of the driveway. As has been previously pointed out, the original subdivision approval limits the exposed height of retaining walls to 5 feet. This site plan also is now showing a pool /spa to the west of the house. A pool on any lot in the subdivision requires prior site Report to the Planning Commission A -1016, Mc Bain Gibbs, Tollgate Rd. FINDINGS: 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk: 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy: 2. Preservation of Natural Landscape: 12/27/85 Page 4 modification approval by the Planning Commission. The location shown for the pool /spa is not approved with this application. The previous grading done on the site is not consistent with the approved grading plans. The existing driveway is also different from that shown on previously approved plans. Therefore, at minimum, double fees should be collected for any grading done without City Approval and the City Geologist should review existing site conditions to determine if there are any concerns that should be corrected. The exposed slopes should be winterized immediately, whether or not approval for the home is granted. The applicant will have 10 days to submit a detailed, engineered grading plan to the Building Inspection Division which indicates erosion control measures. These measures shall be in place by no later than 1/30/86. -The height, elevation and placement.of the project on the site does unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the height of the residence is two feet higher than that height suggested by the Planning Commission as a means to mitigate impacts on views. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the second story windows on the east elevation will be partially blocked by the 4 -1/2 ft. high closed balcony. In addition, the second story over the garage has been removed. The natural landscape is not being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that the grading previously done resulted in a flat building pad. In addition, more grading is proposed for the project, amounting to 800 cu. yds. The natural landscape shall be preserved in the open space easement. The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the imMediate neighborhood in that the home exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard by approximately 800 sq. ft. (including open areas). Although the lot is larger than the minimum lot size for this district, the buildable portion of the lot is relatively small. With this and the visibility of the site, the perception of bulk will be excessive. Report to the Planning Commission A -1016, Mc Bain Gibbs, Tollgate 4. Compatible Bulk and Height: v) 12/27/85 Page 5 The home is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that the existing homes to the east and south are approximately 5,500 sq. ft. or less in gross floor area. The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the topography of the site and the setbacks proposed eliminates this concern. 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards: The plan does not incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that it appears that the grading previously done on the site has not had prior City approval. In addition, erosion control measures should be installed to protect all cut slopes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the project per the Staff Report dated 12/27/85 having been unable to make Findings #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. If the Commission can make these findings per Exhibits "8 -3, C -3 D -3, and E -3." Staff has included the following recommended condtions: 1. Height of structure, measured in accordance with Ordinance NS -3, Section 14.8 shall not exceed 21 feet. 2. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed 6,200 sq. ft. 3. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark. arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the residence (Ordinance 38.121) and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station (Ordinance 1984). Location of the detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. 4. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. 5. Slopes on east facing side shall be graded to a maximum 3:1 slope. 6. Landscaping for screening along the western and southern portions of the home shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall submit the following for Planning Division review and approval. A. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or eleva- tions. B. Landscape plans as required in Condition #6. Report to the Planning Commission A -1016, Mc Bain Gibbs, Tollgate 12/27/85 Page 6 8. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site grading, drainage and foundation plans and provide a written statement to the City certifying he /she has done such a review and that the plans are consistent with the recommendations of his /her report. Building permits will not be issued until this statement is received. 9. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: Driveways having slopes between 12 -1/2% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2% of A.C. on 6" aggregate base. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17 -1/2% shall be surfaced using 4" aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. 10. City Geologist shall review and approve the project prior to issuance of building permits. 11. A detailed, engineered grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and Building Inspection Division within 10 days after this approval. Double fees for any illegal grading shall be required. The grading plan shall also include erosion control measures which shall be in place by no later than 1/30/86. 12. The basement area is not approved. 13. Grading to lower the pad of the living room is not approved. APPROVED DL /dsc /bjc Diana Lewis Planner A IOIG Nc0.41144G1000.Vic :TRICT 1 e ta \4, omw of 0 (4), January 20, 1986 Peter and Eva Kynell 1817 Stone Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kynell: We have received your Appeal Application dated January 17, 1986, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of Design Review Approval for a single family residence located on Lot 5, Tract 6628, at 21409 Tollgate Road (application A- 1016). We have received your $100.00 for the appeal, and the public hearing on this matter is scheduled for February 19, 1986. The City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation. If.you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly you RSS:cd L— a fib aC 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 obert Shook Director of Community Development cc: Deputy City Clerk McBain Gibbs, P. 0. Box 908, Half Moon Bay, CA 94109 Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: Decision Being Appealed: A 1016 See Attached) RECEIVED JAN 17 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL APPLICATION Peter Eva Kynell 1817 Stone Ave. San Jose, Calif. 95125 (408) 286 -8610 McBain Gibbs Inc. Lot 5, Tract 6628 21409 To llgate R Single Family Residence Hearing Date -/7- K Fee CITY USE ONLY ad 11 11 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Appellant's ignature bate Received: /7-f'( 51 *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 BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TM: DAME OI• TH E DE 0, January 16,1986 City of Saratoga RECEIVED JAN171985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The onsite visit was made 11/3/84 and at the committee of the who le on 11/6/84, the commission gave some indications on changes that should be incorporated in the project. These included that the height of the house measured to the pad should not exceed 22 ft. the size of the home should be limited to 7200 7 400 sq.ft., the second story above the garage shou 3d be eliminated and the house should be pu;,hed back from Bougainvillea Ct., by an additional 5 t'ttL/ These conditions were met, with h cure size further reduced to 6972 sq.ft. and the house moved 8 ft. from Bougainvilla Ct. After much expense trouble time still we are being denied because of and ever changing criteria. Planning Commission s c Meeting Minutes 10/24/ SDR -1581 and A -1014 (cont.) he believes that the Commission is not really looking at the true usage of the roof line. Chairman Siegfried noted that the-Commission's concern is visibility and the appearance of bulk. It was directed that this matter be placed on the agenda for the study session on November 6, 1984 and the regular meeting of November 14, 1984: Page 3 McBain f, Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two- story, single family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR District at 21409 Tollgate Road, Tract 6628, Lot 5; continued from October 10, 1984 The public hearing was opened at 8118 p.m. Mr. McBain discussed the lots in the subdivision, asking to further discuss the issues at the study session on November 6, 1984. Staff requested that Mr. McBain submit a letter, list- ing the issues. Mr. McBain indicated that he will also meet with the neigh- bors. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing this lot and indicating that the committee was not disposed at all to even con- sider a two -story building on this site. It was noted that there will be an on -site visit on November 3, 1984. It was directed that this matter be continued to the study session on November 6, 1984 and the regular meeting of November 14, 1984. 6. V -662 J. P. Gertie DeVos, Request for Variance Approval to allow a 10 ft. fence 7 ft. from the side property line at 146S1 Farwell Avenue, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from Octo- ber 10, 1984 Staff gave the history of the project and explained the request for variance. They noted that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, commenting that mitigating the appearance of the wall to the satisfaction of everyone did not seem to be a major problem. However, making the finding for a variance seems to be the problem, and the committee explained again that situation to Mrs. DeVos. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Mr. DeVos addressed the findings in the Staff Report. Regarding 112, Physical, Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances, he stated that the wall is so close to the house that it is virtually part of it. H commented that if the wall is removed entirely a blank wall of 20 feet will remain, the physical structure of the house itself. He described the bathroom and explained how the wall had been raised to 10 feet to provide privacy for themselves and the neighbors. Relative to finding 114, Special Privilege, he stated that he does not feel that privacy is asking for a special privilege. Regarding 115, he commented that the neighbors really do not mind the height of the wall. He asked that the variance be granted to ensure comfortable living conditions for themselves and the neighbors. Chairman Siegfried asked about possible things that could be done to mitigate the present view of the wall if the variance were granted. Dick Stowers, the architect, submitted photographs of the site. He commented that this is a hillside area where the house is built and the house that is located to the east is 16 feet higher. He stated that the fact that it is on a hill- side is a mitigating factor. He discussed the topography of the area, the existing landscaping and proposed landscaping. He indicated that they were not adverse to putting in a fence, even though they do not feel it would help the situation. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the applicants have indicated that they are not willing to compromise and change the color whatsoever, and she feels that, with it remaining pink and with no compromise on the height of the wall, granting approval of it is very difficult. She stated that she feels that the color is a major concern of the neighbors. She added that if the wall were somewhat lowered it still would retain some privacy into the bathroom. Discussion followed on possibly painting the wall an earth tone color. Mr. Stowers commented that painting the wall a brown or an carthtone would not help the appearance of the house. He explained that the wall now tends to Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes Meeting 4/10/85 A -1074 and V -687 the unusual circumstances involve the garage situation. If the garage is built in front there is a setback problem. The applicant can't build! it to the rear so the garage has to be a part of the design of the home. She can see the logic to maintaining this garage at 16 ft. and not making the front of the house on the garage side coming out 2 ft., with the rest of the house being back 2 ft. She feels that the applicant has put a lot of time and effort into the research to have a house that is definitely going to upgrade the neighborhood. Commissioner Schaefer suggested cutting 2 ft. off of the dining room, rather than granting a variance for a substandard garage. She expressed concern about setting a precedent. Mr. Szalay commented that cutting 2 ft. off of the dining room would make it very small, 10 ft. x 10 ft. Commissioner Peterson commented that he is not sure that, on a small lot like this where they are upgrading it, what will be accomplished by requiring the applicant to move a wall to increase the garage 2 ft. Commissioner Siegfried stated that this is a 7500 sq. ft. lot with an existing 1100 sq. ft. structure on it. Commissioner Peterson commented that on lots like this in the older areas, he feels that the Commission may be faced with this type of situation. He stated that the applicant is trying to upgrade a house in an area where it is very difficult to meet all of the findings. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the additional 2 ft. could be obtained by increasing the variance to 20 ft.4 in., rather than 22 ft. 4 in. He added that Staff is able to make the variance findings for a 22 ft. 4 in. setback for the garage, but they cannot make it because the garage is only 16 ft. in depth. He stated that if the finding can be made for 20 ft. 4 in., it seems the second story is tied to it. It was noted that the Staff findings could be made for 20 ft. 4 in. The applicant commented that a 20 ft. 4 in. setback would throw the design off. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that if the Staff can make the findings for 20 ft. 4 in., then she can make them for 22 ft. 4 in. Staff commented that the findings which have to be made by the. Commission would be relative to the second story question. They added that findings would also have to be made relative to the length of the garage; however, with the 20 ft. 4 in. it would have a length of 18 ft. It was pointed out that there are findings submitted by the applicant with the packet. Mr. Szalay explained on the plan how the front of the of the house is affected if the garage is moved 2 ft. forward. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels the findings can be made, given the circumstances of the size of the lot and the nature of the area. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she feels an additional consideration is the fact that there is an interruption of the line in the design which gives architectural relief. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant has carefully made the second story the front of the house so as to not affect the privacy of the neighbors, and that is a rationale for being closer to the curb. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -1074 and V -687, per the conditions in the Staff Report, based on the findings discussed above and those submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. MISCELLANEOUS 17. Discussion of Amendment to CC &Rs for Tract 6628; continued from March 27, 1985 Staff explained the request, recommending approval of the garage size and recommending that the CC &Rs remain the same relative to Lots 5, 6 9 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 4/10/85 RSS:cd 10 Res 18. Report on Lots of Record on Oak Place (for information only) ectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary Page 1( COMMUNICATIONS Written None Oral by Commission and Staff 1. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attend and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. 4. Tract 6628 and 12 and the single -story aspect, and that the approval of the swimming pool be contingent on input from the City Geologist and an on- site visit. Bob McBain, the applicant, addressed the height issue, explaining that the pads are now lower. This issue was discussed by the Commission, and Commissioner Siegfried agreed with the applicant that when the condition was placed for one -story residences, it was because there was a significant difference in height between a single -story and a two -story house. It was pointed out that the Commission will still have control over the design during the Design Review Approval process. Discussion followed on putting a height limitation, but at a lower height than the 23 ft. requested by the applicant. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend 'to the City. Council" the amendment to the CC &Rs'as listed in the Staff Report dated March 7, 1985, changing Item 2, relative to the height, to read that the height of the structures on lots 5, 6 and 12 be no more than 21 ft. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes Meeting 10/23/85 V -714 an 8 ft. soundwall, and V- 714(d) for a 7.5 wall and gate, per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985 and Exhibits B throug' Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion. It was clarified to Commissioner Pines that the applicant does not need a permit to build a 6 ft. fence. on his property line. Commissioner Pines suggested that the applicant do some mitigating landscaping. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. The appeal period was noted. 12a. Negative Declaration SM -22 Kemp Carter 12b. SM -22 Kemp Carter, Request for Site Modification and Variance 12c. V -715 Approvals to construct a recreational court with 10 ft. high enncing on a 10% slope with no side yard setback where 20 ft. is required at 19306 Pinnacle Court, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (to be continued to November 13, 1985) It was directed that this be continued to November 13, 1985. 13. A -1016 McBain and Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two- story, single family resi- dence with gross floor area which exceeds 6,200 sq. ft., on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at Lot 5, Tract 6628, Tollgate Road Staff described the application, reporting that the matter was originally before the Commission in November, but the applicant requested a continuance to allow for amendment to the CC &Rs that restricted the development to single -story structures. They noted that the Commission had recommended in those changes that the height of this residence be no greater than 21 ft; however, this application does not reflect that. Staff indicated that they could not make the necessary findings and recommends denial. The petitipn from the neighbors on Bougainvillea in opposition to the proposal was noted. Staff commented that the grading is not consistent with the approved grading plan. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Bob McBain, the owner, gave a presentation on the project, discussing the grading and the height. He explained the changes that have been made from discussions at the last meeting. Discussion was held on the measurement of the square footage. Peter_Kynell, the applicant, stated that he feels they have conformed with everything discussed at the last study session. It was explained to Mr. Kynell that by the standards used by the Commission, the home is 8200 sq. ft. house. The City Attorney clarified that the square footage is not calculated according to the UBC; the interpretion of floor area is as defined in, the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. He explained the measurement of open area in terms of bulk. Commissioner B. Harris pointed out that, by the applicant's measurement, it is still 1,000 sq. ft. over the guideline. The aesthetics of the house were discussed by Mr. Tynell, Commissioner J. Harris commented it is a lovely design and she has no qualms with it from an aesthetics point of view. However, in trying to envision it up on that very high visible pad, it has vertical lines that will accentuate the height. She stated that a 7400 sq. ft. house is a very large house; her perception of it is that it is going to be much too-bulky for the site. Commissioner Burger pointed out that the buildable pad on this particular application was also rather small. Discussion followed on the amendment of the CC &Rs. Mr. McBain pointed out that they refer to a restriction of 21 ft.; however, there is wording in them that states that a height greater than 21 ft. can be approved with the consent of the committee and the City of Saratoga. He Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes Meeting 10/23/85 A -1016 also noted that there is an approved house in the_subdivision that is substantially greater in size than the proposal." He discussed the design and placement of the home. Josephine Steinbach, 14600 Bougainvillea Court, stated that they had been told at the time of the development of the subdivision that it was totally inappropriate to build anything other than a moderate single story home on this site, i.e. 6200 sq. ft. She stated that they were also told that the grading would not be a problem; however, t r,,re has been grading for a whole summer. She commented that she feels the builder is showing no intention of trying to fulfill his original commitment. She discfed the grading that had been done and asked that the home be a single -story and 6200 sq. ft. She indicated that she was concerned specifically about the height. Ben Chin, 14632 Bougainvillea Court, gave the history of the subdivision and spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Robert Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea Court, supported the statements made by his neighbors. He addressed the garage which has been moved and built on top of a retaining wall. Margo Heller, 14696 Bougainvillea Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Kynell, the applicant, addressed the grading, commenting that the grading done in the spring had been done to smooth out the lot, since it was full of chuckholes and potholes because of four wheelers. Mr. McBain clarified that their subdivision had originally been 20 lots and there were 16 approved lots after the compromise settlement with the City. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that he could not accept 8200 sq. ft. He added that it clearly seems that the intent was to keep the home at a height of 21 ft. Commissioner Pines concurred regarding the size of the house, especially considering the nature of the lot. He indicated that he is concerned about the grading of the driveway. Commissioners Burger, J. Harris and B. Harris agreed with the statements made by Commissioners Peterson and Pines. Chairman Peterson commented that there was clearly a consensus to deny. He pointed out the options to the applicant of moving to deny the project and appealing to the City Council, or continuing the matter to a study session. The applicant and owner agreed to a study session. Staff was asked to review the schedule of meetings and inform Mr. McBain of the date of the next available study session. It was directed that this matter be continued to the regular meeting of December 11, 1985. It was noted that the winterization should be accomplished. Break 9:30 9:40 p.m. 14. A -1144 Ken Chan, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two- story, single family residence on a hillside lot at Lot 13, Tract 6528, Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district Staff explained the application, indicating that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. 0 Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes 1/8/86 Items #1, A -1153, J. Lohr, and #2, A -1154, J. Lohr, were removed for discussion. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Discussion followed on Items #1 and #2. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. on A -1153. Beverly Remler expressed concern that the proposed houses are too big for the lots. Mr. Lohr, the applicant, addressed the house on Lot 11. He indicated that they have reduced the square footage to 4,194 sq. ft., which is under the Staff's recommended 4200 sq. ft. Mr. Lohr clarified that the house on Lot 7 is now 3738 sq. ft., which is within the standard. It was also clarified to Ms. Remler that the measurements include the garage. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -1153, J. Lohr, per the Staff Report dated December 19, 1985. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m. on A -1154. Mr. Lohr stated, relative to A -1154, that the only two homes in question are those on Lots 25 and 26. He indicated that the house and garage on Lot 26 is 3,702 sq. ft., and he can reduce the garage to bring it to 3,500 sq. ft. since it is a spec house. Relative to Lot 25, he stated that the client would like to have 3,783 sq. ft. Commissioner Guch gave an on -site report, describing the sites. She commented that she feels that 3700 sq. ft. is adequate for Lot 25. Commissioner Burger stated that with the reduction of the home on Lot 26 to the standard of 3500 sq. ft., she would then be comfortable with granting the additional 283 sq. ft. for the home on Lot 25. She added that this would eliminate the problem of two very large homes next to each other in the subdivision. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A -1154, J. Lohr, per Exhibits B through I and the Staff Report dated December 27, 1985, amending Condition #2 to read 3783 sq. ft. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. 5. A -1016 McBain and Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two- story, single family residence with gross floor area which exceeds 6,200 sq. ft., on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at Lot 5, Tract 6628, Tollgate Road; continued from December 11, 1985 Staff explained the history of the project, indicating that the item had recently been at a study session, where the revisions submitted by the applicant were generally unacceptable to the Planning Commission. Staff stated that they are unable to make the findings and continue to recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Peter Kynell, the applicant, explained the changes that had been made, indicating that the square footage was now 6972 by the new form of measurement. He addressed the height and Staff noted that the drawings Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes 1/8/86 A -1016 had not been drawn to scale; however, it would be required that they be drawn accurately to scale at the time of building permit. Staff explained the method of measurement of height and noted that Mr. Kynell has measured to the top of slab or service walk, which makes a difference of aprproximately 4 Don Steinbach, 14600 Bougainvillea Court, spoke in opposition. He pointed out that during the hearings on the subdivision, in response to the neighbors' concerns, Mr. McBain had commented that they were overreacting, and the only thing that would possibly be appropriate for the lots in this area would be a moderate, one story, 6200 sq. ft. maximum house. Bob Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea Court, also supported the Staff recommendations and noted the impact that this home would have. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines pointed out that, although the site is 1.7 acres, the building pad is quite small, and he cannot find any reason to allow a house over the 6200 sq. ft. guidelines. Commissioner Burger and Commissioner J. Harris concurred. Commissioner J. Harris added that she appreciates the applicant trying to reduce the square footage some and moving the home back. However, she cannot make the findings relative to the perception of bulk. Commissioner Burger commented that she feels that the Commission, in the many meetings that were held on this project, indicated their major concerns, which is the small building pad and the size of the home. She stated that there have been little changes, but she does not see a definitive response to the major concerns. Commissioner Peterson concurred, pointing out the small building pad. He stated that he cannot support anything over 6200 sq. ft. He added that he might have a difficult time supporting this particular design at 6200 sq. ft. and a height of 21 ft., because he feels it may still have an impact on the neighbors. He commented that he feels the house has to be redesigned to be more compatible with the neighborhood and the building pad size. Commissioner Burger moved to deny A -1016, per the Staff Report dated Decemer 27, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The appeal period was noted. 6a. E -2 -85 Murray Dey, et al, Consider a Draft EIR (Gypsy Hill 6b. SD -1595 Farm Residential Subdivision) and Tentative Subdivi- sion Approval for a 23 -lot subdivision on a 27.85 acre site located at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue; continued from December 11, 1985 Staff commented that the EIR consultant has replied to all questions brought up at the last public hearing and Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the Final EIR as being adequate. They reported that the Commission is scheduled to visit the site on January 18, 1986. A correction in wording was noted by Commissioner Pines on page 2.2 of the Final EIR. The public hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m. on the EIR. Richard Reinhart, 14660 Sobey Road, expressed concern with the storm drainage that is going to be added to Sobey Creek. He addressd the October 5, 1984 Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: Your Notice of Hearing regarding design review approval to construct a two story residence on Lot 5 of Tract 6628 (21409 Tollgate Road) has created concern for those of us located below the building site in the Tollgate Road and Bougainvillea Court area. The proposed residence will be located directly on the skyline on the top of the ridge between Bougainvillea Court and the recent extension of Tollgate Road. This appears to 1e in direct contrast with the usual Planning Commission policy of having a structure compliment, rather than detract from, existing natural features. The recently constructed home on Lot 4 of the same tract demonstrates that this can be accomplished. The construction of a two -story structure will likely be as objectionable to future residents west of Tollgate Road as it is to those of us currently living in the area. From either vantage point, a two -story home on Lot 5 will appear to 'reach to the heavens' and be perceived more as a monument than a dwelling. Before granting design review approval for this construction project we suggest that you survey the site from the perspective of its present and future neighbors. We think that you will agree that a two -story residence is inappropriate for this location. Sincerely, 47 74 c gA,A2A;vii A- /0/6 I. `_�a ✓ate i (3'z 6 3 2 /-`766/" t w�-Pr CY C CT 16 1984 PERMIT REVIc.Ir` M 111a7- 4:7 657. lcfactG cc f i 47 zr c ��`c+- c„�,.v,[.�P�a) ij October 19, 1985 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Planning Commission: We concur with the evaluations and recommendations of the Planning Staff regarding Lot 5, Tract 6628, as contained in the "Report to Planning Commission" dated 10/15/85. One point not specifically addressed in Finding #3 on page 4 of the report is that the corner of the garage extends over the easterly edge of the existing slope and appears (on the site plan) to essentially sit on top of a then required retaining wall. Clear direction to move the house back from Bougainvillea Court to alleviate this situation was given at the 11/6/84 Committee -of- the -Whole meeting, but the site plan on file does not reflect this change. The proposed design clearly adds to the perception of excessive bulk. A second point, as clarification of the MATERIALS COLORS item on page 2 of the report, is that the plans specify "Red Mission Tile" (not "Mission Tile on the roof. A color exhibiting less contrast with the skyline would be more appropriate for this particular elevated building site. Sincerely, cL l `ALCX) ,9-(Ai /2' `f 1./ lip C'•'c'.�- .t1���L,.l., "l`f -L(. G..t".:Z /41f ,00 8d'd!"s4 v 11-L_c c r 47:z 44 0 3 7 P,c-1.4 4ALLi iAti C i 47c-Wfr, (Y o S' /1 C November 3, 1984 Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: A- ,io/c., Photographs taken before and during the site inspection of Lot 5 of Tract 6628 by the Planning Commission today are enclosed for your reference. Four of the photographs show the building site on the horizon, and the fifth is a view of Bougainvillea Court as seen from standing on the building pad. That site review, with considerable detail presented in terms of footprint and elevations, reinforces our concerns expressed in the letter to you dated October 5, 1984. It appears that the proposed design more than exceeds the lateral footprint available on the building pad, and that the proposed second story is indeed a second story in the conventional meaning of the word. Some specific concerns and comments follow: 1. The garage wall that faces substantially East appears to be conventional single -story but actually (according to the site plan) starts on top of a 2 1/2 foot (probably more) brick retaining wall. In other words, the visual baseline begins approximately 2 1/2 to 3 feet below the surface of the building pad. The retaining wall and backfill is required to support the corner of the garage. In reality, the retaining wall will probably need to be farther out on the slope (and thus higher) to provide room for personnel access and foundation footings. 2. Most of the frontal edge of the property on the down -slope side is shown to be enclosed by this same retaining wall. 3. The plans call for Red Mission (I believe that's the correct name) roof tile. Neither the developer nor the owner knows what color this is except that it is somewhere between red and pink. The plans need to specify a less obvious roof color such as dark tile or shake to minimize the contrast with the horizon. 4. Similarily, the color of the house is nowhere specified. Some variety of white may be in mind, and would not be appropriate. This should be specified on the plans, again to minimize the contrast with the skyline and surrounding terrain. 5. There are apparently two sets of floor plans for the upper right corner of the house. One shows the area as a childrens study with a bedroom. The other replaces the study with a kithchen /dining /living area which probably explains the need for balconies and sliding doors on the front of that part of the house. 6. The balcony railings are evidently planned to be 42" high solid with stucco covering rather than open vertical rails as shown on the plans. This seems inconsistent with the owners desire for the balconies as a place to display plants to make the front more inviting. In summary, there is still considerable concern regarding the visual impact of a very large house on a relatively small pad situated at a prominent elevation. It appears that your original guidlines of a single story (presumably meaning less than 16' from grade to ridge) structure of up to 6,200 sq. ft. were, and still are, appropriate for this lot. I doubt that you will find that this is a minority opinion. Sincerely, Dkfnald L. and Josephine F. Steinbach 14600. Bougainvillea Court Saratoga, CA.95070 /7 .N1-' /7 --c..-- V1, 11/CIVZI` n 1 b,..-c;.c_,. ci/ :64 1_6.- _,e,,,-,:-__,e_./2?_, ri.-- 1 1 I 1 tr'" ilt/nWl/tICALL.C1 i .1 ---41...1 f .7 ft. i 4 ..-1--' ,1,-;..-cLi io 7` .1: .4 i i ,t fr 'N..- a I i ,5 c-us 4 i e ti.;-e-,4„ _.L_-: _i,ii---.'v.:. ,t,.,„ g .../.20.c _.t., _...L,L.,—(tti _.,(.,72---Lyzi-L,-.,.c.,...7- ....,c .fr .4., 0/2--, 2 ,1-,!,,,•,„ /7..2 ..-r.,.:z..„ i..... e -://Z/P-71 1-!:• 2 Li -t i i-••"` 7 r7 ',e' f'", /r Z 1-/ 2-/-1''1 ,,,o 7 7 77 .1,, 63 -"-‘-..--e' i i 0 Le .f.,L. 6.,:e__• ez..t 6 -...-f.... i'- i t,' V 1 Re. i H 7 4"/ f .1 'Pro pc> SCZA= (p c.2 I 4 40 rb I 3a-te_ Rot tctiv, v 1-.01 4* .5 2 6Z,,/), C.-- 7-- February 12 ,1986 To: PLANNING COMMISSION City of Saratoga, Dear Sirs; We, Mr. Mrs. C-LprItuo-NI. imd; have had the opportunity to meet with Peter Eva Kynell and review the drawings and scale model of their proposed new residence. We find the drawings and model to be c ompatiab le and will be an enhance- ment to our neighborhood. We are looking forward to having this beautiful house built soon. We fully support the application of Mr. Mrs. Kynell for the proposed residence. Sincerely AGENDA BILL N0. q DATE:: 2/12/86 .2/19/86) DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: GPA- 86 City of Saratoga Amendment of the General Plan Land Use Designation of a Site at the Southwest Corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue ISSUE SUMMARY A portion of the parcel located at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue is currently designated Open Space Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) on the General Plan Map. The Parks Recreation Commission has indicated that the site was originally contemplated as a staging area for equestrian trails in the area. However, the Parks Recreation Commission now feels that the community would be better served by receiving in -lieu fees rather than developing and maintaining an open space area on the site. RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the Land Use designation. 2. The Council should open the public hearing, take testimony, and close the public hearing before deciding on the amendment. 3. If the Council wishes to approve the amendment, they must first approve the Negative Declaration for the project. FISCAL IMPACTS The City will receive in -lieu fees from future development in the area rather than developing and maintaining a park or trail staging area on the parcel. EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Negative Declaration 2. City Council Resolution amending the Land Use 6. Designation 3. Report to Mayor City Council dated 2/13/86 4. Planning Commission Resolution GPA -86 -1 COUNCIL ACTION 2/19: Approved REsolution 2314. Initial Dept. Hd. C. Atty. 5. Staff Report dated 2/3/86 Memorandum from Parks Recreation Commission dated 10/30/85 7. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/12/86 EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: GPA -86 2, The undersigned, Director 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, Sections 15080 through 15083 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 The project is the amendment of the General Plan Land Use designation of a site at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue from Open Space Outdoor Recreation to Residential Very Low Density. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project will not have an significant adverse impact on the environment. The site is currently vacant and had not yet been developed as a park. With the amendment the site will be developed for residential use in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The mini- mum lot size in the area is•40,000 sq. ft. Therefore, open space is provided on the individual lots. Executed at Saratoga, California this. 23rd day of January 1986 ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENV RONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SA 0. 1_..L1 A DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOBEY ROAD AND CHESTER AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has determined that the area at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue designated Open Space Outdoor Recreation is not needed for a park site or trail staging area and that the community would be better served by receiving in lieu fees from future development of the area; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on February 12, 1986, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use designation at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue; and WHEREAS, after the closing of said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Land Use Element designation of the area at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at a regular meeting of February 19, 1986, held a public hearing in accordance with Government Code Section 65355, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the said Land Use Element; and Having heard the evidence presented, both written and oral, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS in connection with the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element designation of the General Plan: 1. The southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue is zoned R 1- 40,000. Any future residential development will require a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. Open space remains within the development of the land for residential use because of the large lot size. 2. The proposed amendment will maintain the character of the neighborhood and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area. 3. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the findings set forth hereinabove, the City Council of the City of Saratoga resolves as follows: That the land use designation of the area at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue shall be amended from Open Space Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family (RVLD). The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 19th day of February, 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CITY CLERK MAYOR ATTEST: TU ©2 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: GPA -86 -1; Amendment of General Plan Land Use Designation at the Southwest Corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue A portion of the parcel located at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue is currently designated Open Space Outdoor Recreation (OSOR). It was originally contemplated that the corner would be used as a staging area for equestrian trails in the area. In reviewing a tentative map for the development of the parcel and an adjacent parcel (Gypsy Hill Farm Subdivision), the Parks and Recreation Commission determined that the community would bebetter served by receiving in lieu fees from future development rather than developing and maintaining an open space area at the subject corner. A condition from the Maintenance Department for the proposed 23 lot subdivision is to dedicate easements to provide unimproved equestrian trails along Sobey Road and the entire western boundary of the tract (property line adjacent to Odd Fellows) and an easement to connect Sobey Road to the westerly boundary. The condition for trails will remain in the subdivision and is not affected by the proposed General Plan amendment. The amendment is to designate the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue from OSOR to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family (RVLD). This land use designation is consistent with the surrounding properties. The parcel is zoned R -1- 40,000. Open space will remain within the development of the land for residential use because of the large lot size. The Planning Commission agreed with the Parks Recreation recommendation. At their meeting, they explained to two nearby residents that the half -acre park site would not become a half -acre home site but would be integrated into minimum 40,000 sq. ft. lots. The residents were invited to the next hearings on the 23 lot subdivision. Rober ook Di ctor of Community Development DATE: 2/13/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 2/19/86 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has determined that the area at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue designated Open Space Outdoor Recreation is not needed for a park site or trail staging area and that the community would be better served by receiving in lieu fees from. future development of the area; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has determined that the area should be designated from Open Space- Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family (RVLD) to be compatible with the surrounding properties; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351 held a public hearing on February 12, 1986 and reviewed the proposed amendment of the Land Use Element designation; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the draft negative declaration and the findings attached as Exhibit "B NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 12th day of February, 1986, by the following date: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. GPA -86 -1 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOBEY ROAD AND CHESTER AVENUE That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the Land Use Element designation of the area at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue from Open Space Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family. Secretary Chairman, Planning Commission FINDINGS: EXHIBIT B 1. The southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue is zoned R -1- 40,000. Any future residential development will require a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. Open space remains within the development of the land for residential use because of the large lot size. 2. The proposed amendment will maintain the character of the neighborhood and will have no adverse impact of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public safey, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. Pprov MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION Date: 2/3/86 Commission Meeting: 2/12/86 APPLICATION NO.: GPA -86 -1 A.P.N.: Portion of 397 -04 -02 ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend an amendment of the Land Use Element designation at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue A portion of the parcel located at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue is currently designated Open Space- Outdoor Recreation. A tentative parcel map was submitted to the City for the subdivision of the subject parcel and the parcel to the west. A 0.5 acre park was proposed as a part of the subdivision in compliance with the General Plan designation. In reviewing the project, the Parks and Recreation Commission determined that the community would be better served by receiving in lieu fees from future development in the area rather than developing a park or trail staging area on the parcel. The land use designation would be amended to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family (RVLD) to be compatible with the surrounding properties. The parcel is zoned R- 1- 40,000. Residential development of the parcel will require a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. Open space will remain within the development of the land for residential use because of the large lot size. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the land use designation in the project vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the land use designation of the subject parcel from Open Space- Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family (RVLD). Lucille Hise 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (908) 867 -3938 Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission Sobey and Chester Trail Staging Area (File #SD -1595) The Parks and Recreation Commission, at their October 7, 1985 meeting, reviewed SD #1595 as it pertains to the proposed small park at the corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue indicated on the General Plan. The site was contemplated as a staging area for equestrian trails in the area. The Commission feels the community would be better served by releasing the land to the developer and receiving fees in lieu thereof. j Rich Vallone, Chairman Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: October 30, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 2/12/86 UNAPPROVED 11. GP -86 -1 -Gypsy Hill Subdivision, Consider Amending the General Plan Designation of a portion of a parcel at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Ave., from Open Space Outdoor Recreation (OSOR).to Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) per Government Code Sections 65350 -65362 and Article 15 "of the City Code 350 -65362 Staff explained the proposed designation amendment. They stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission have recently reviewed the designation for this 1/2 acre park site which was contemplated to be used as a horse staging area, and they have recommended that the park area designation for the site be eliminated. They added that the Parks and Recreation Commission have indicated that the City would be better served by receiving in lieu fees from future development. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution, making a recommendation to the City Council that they amend the land use designation. It was noted that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Hoover regarding this application. Staff clarified that this amendment has nothing to do with the trail on the site; it just concerns the park area and horse turnaround area. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Pat Keenan, the next door neighbor of the Hoovers, inquired about the size of the building site on this parcel, expressing her objection to 1/2 acre lots in that area. Staff explained that it Ls_ not the intention to create a 1/2 acre site and put a home on it. They commented that this property will be absorbed into the-.sites in that area and will not create any additional density on this development. Mrs. Keenan addressed the private road in her area, expressing concern relative to the additional traffic from the subdivision. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, further explained that the 1/2 acre park site will be absorbed into the remainder of the property, and all of the lots will be 40,000 sq. ft. or larger. He commented that the private road in question will remain a private road, and none of the lots in the project will access onto that road. He added that, with the connection of Chester Avenue to that private road, Chester will become a public street and will further reduce the traffic concern. Dr. Hoover commented that his questions were now answered. He added that he would still prefer to have the parcel be an equestrian riding, ring. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution GPA -86 -1, recommending the amendment of the General Plan Designation. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. It was pointed out to the neighbors that the subdivision will be discussed further'at the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1986. Jeanne B. Boylan 14670 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 February 12, 1986 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Saratoga City Council: I oppose amendment of the General Plan designation of a 0.5 acre parcel at the corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue from Open Space Outdoor Reecreation to Residential -Very Low Density. I have lived on Sobey Road for more than twenty years and have seen it change from country to almost Gaudy City. It would be a beauty treatment to see a small corner park. You could call it Brookman Corner in memory of Mr. Brookman, the longtime owner of the property. In consideration of the whole parcel, think about limitation of the size of the houses to be put on the property. I have heard other developments using Sobey Road as an example of "Don't let that happen here A sample of Sobey Road bad planning is the corner of Sobey Road and Sperry, Lane where a council member claimed the council goofed. Let's keep Sobey Road as nice as possible even with the inevitable development. Thank you for your consideration of my letter. Si, erely, y Jeanne Boylan REX W. HOOVER, D.D.S., INC. 3990 SO. BASCOM AVE. SAN JOSE, CALIF. 95124 TELEPHONE 356 -5161 February 11., 1986 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Planning Commission Members: I am writing to express my opposition to amending the general plan for the half acre parcel at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue from OSOR to RVLD. From my address you can see that my property is directly adjacent to this parcel and will be impacted most by this proposal. The original city plan set aside this half acre parcel as an equestrian staging area. This was at a time when the equestrian trails were intact and a priority to the City of Saratoga. Residential growth has since eliminated those equestrian trails. I feel that an appropriate alternative use for this parcel could be an equestrian riding ring for use by the local riders. Not only would this.be welcomed by the local residents, but it would also be in keeping with the wishes of Murry Brookman who used to own this property. During his life- time he made his property available to horseback riders and even provided them a riding ring. To those of us who knew him, he will be remembered as a profound lover of horses. I think his family would agree that some equestrian considera- tion, perhaps in his memory, would be appropriate. I strongly disagree with the proposal to make a half acre home site at the southwest corner of the former Brookman property. The general impact on increased density and reduction in property values goes contrary to the spirit of most other decisions by your committee. The impact to me personally, for example, will place two homes directly behind my property, obscuring my view. The normal "one acre minimum" would place only one home in that same space. City of Saratoga My hope is that you give serious consideration to an equestrian area; but, should you decide that this parcel become residential, please consider redesigning the entire project to the one acre minimum throughout. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rex`W. and Janis L. Hoover 14475 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 RWH:hv -2- February 11, 1986 City of Saratoga My hope is that you give serious consideration to an equestrian area; but, should you decide that this parcel become residential, please consider redesigning the entire project to the one acre minimum throughout. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rex`W. and Janis L. Hoover 14475 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 RWH:hv -2- February 11, 1986