Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kaplan, Murakami, Page, Patrick, Pierce, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Martlage Staff: Associate Planner Bradley, Assistant Planners Ratcliffe and Pearson Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - April 14, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Pierce/Kaplan, the Commission approved the April 14, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 5, paragraph 6, line 4, replace the word within with outside and last sentence, replace the word refuse with the word refute. - Page 13, paragraph 2, line 4, replace the word belief with believe and line 11 amended to read: "...accepted Commissioner Martlage's point that it the chimney does add another nice element..." The motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Patrick abstaining and Commissioner Martlage absent. Oral Communication Planner Bradley informed the Commission that a letter was received from Marcia Benson, Benson's Antiques, complaining about individuals who use the front of her business to park their bicycles and yet do not patronize her business. She requested that bicycle racks not be placed in the curb areas. She said that she is displeased that benches are being placed on the curbs, blocking access to individuals. Ms. Benson further complains that trash is overflowing. Ms. Benson notes that there is not one handicapped parking space placed on the street and recommends that a handicap parking space be installed in every block. She further requested that parking meters be installed to limit parking hours to customers, as the worst offenders are the merchants themselves, many parking in the street all day. She asked if the police department can issue more tickets for street parking. She complained that grand opening signs are being left up for months on end. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that staff will be notifying the code enforcement officer about these issues of concern. No other comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Planner Bradley declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 23, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 2 - No technical corrections to the packet were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. F-98-005 & V-99-004 (503-75-020) - HENRY, 21801 Congress Springs Lane; Request for Fence Permit approval to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a rear yard. The site is 3.3 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/12/99 IN ORDER TO BE RE-NOTICED TO INCLUDE VARIANCE REQUEST). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP-97-004.1 (393-01-024, -025, -026, -027, -028, & 393-02-003) - STARBUCKS, 12960 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit for a 1,160 sq. ft. space by expanding the restaurant into an additional 440 sq. ft. of the existing Argonaut Shopping Center. The modification application includes a request to allow outdoor seating without additional parking spaces. The property is located within a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that staff has determined that the four additional parking spaces to accommodate the outdoor seating would not be necessary as the busiest hours of the business would be the early morning hours when many of the other shops in the center are closed. She indicated that the aggregate parking of the shopping center was sufficient. She said that noise, litter and traffic have been the primary concerns of the surrounding neighbors. Staff has determined that the additional seating will not have a noticeable impact on traffic and that noise should be kept within the confines of the buildings exterior arcade and that litter will be kept clean by the employees. In addition, the resolution of approval contains a condition pertaining to litter removal. If any of these issues become a problem in the future, the Planning Commission always has the authority to impose further restrictions on the business. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the use permit. She clarified that staff has been informed by the applicant that no coffee roasting is to occur at this location. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Drew Padilla, applicant/project architect, stated that he would answer questions relating to the architectural features, handicap accessibility and code compliance. He said that the nature of the extension of this permit is to provide for a greater amount of square footage than was previously provided in an earlier review of the use permit as well as to provide for outdoor seating. It was his belief that the addition of outdoor seating at this particular shopping center will help vitalize not only the sidewalk landscape underneath the arcade, but also the relationship of the store to the parking lot. The nature of the work being done to the shopping center is one that would encourage an aggregate use of the parking spaces as well as providing a more pleasant pedestrian environment. Commissioner Patrick said that in looking at the plans, the additional square footage to be added is almost equal to the new outdoor seating area which is being taken from the original plan. Mr. Padilla informed the Commission that there may be a misinterpretation on the plans. The actual increase in square footage is occurring to the rear of the space. He said that the project is approximately the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 3 - same square footage. He confirmed that tables, chairs and lounge chairs are proposed outside of the building and that it is proposed to move the bathroom and kitchen further back on the Blauer Drive side. He said that he expects patrons to enter through an entrance provided by the shopping center which will be retained as a secondary means of egress. Lisa Trexler, speaking for Mary Bogdanovich, 20391 Blauer Drive, stated that her home is the first house past the shopping center. She stated that she strongly objects to Starbucks so close to the residential area and for the complete disregard to the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhood. She is speaking from the perspective that the city recognizes that this is a commercial operation located against a residential area and that the residents will experience a burden that is not felt by others in the city. The area residents will have an operation that begins at 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., both quiet times when there is to be a lot more traffic. She said that new activities are being proposed with Starbucks and Blockbusters, both of which will produce traffic that will spill into the neighborhood. She felt that this was an inappropriate action against the neighborhood. She felt that Starbucks belongs in the center where it would not bother the neighbors, closer to Safeway which stays open 24-hours. She felt that it was a mistake to have approved the use on the corner. She said that both Blauer Drive and Regan Lane will be experiencing a great increase in traffic, some vehicles making u-turns to get onto Highway 9 or to avoid the stop light, winding their way out through the neighborhood. She said that the neighbors were led to believe that Starbucks was to locate somewhere in the middle of the shopping center and asked when this location was changed? She asked if an appropriate traffic analysis has been conducted as an EIR would have projected a traffic pattern? She requested to see the traffic analysis. She said that the Starbucks' location was unacceptable to her. Chris Hawks, 20390 Blauer Drive, stated that he was disappointed to have to return to the Commission to readdress this issue. He said that he was beginning to wonder if he made a mistake when he moved his family to Saratoga as he moved to Saratoga for the quite residential neighborhoods and the feeling of family, community and neighborhood. Anyone who has had the opportunity to look at the shops that were located in the shopping center had a clear idea of what sort of retail behavior existed (i.e., family oriented shops such as a barber shop, shoe repair, dance studio, travel agency with normal hours of operation.) If it is being stated that this is an acceptable location for Starbucks, he felt that a huge disconnect exists. He felt that Starbucks is a drastically different operation from all the other retail businesses that have been in this location. He noted that the request before the Commission is a conditional use permit and that the Commission has the right and responsibility to determine if this particular use at this particular location is appropriate. He said that the neighborhood is not excited about seeing a Starbucks locating in the shopping center as there are concerns with traffic impacts to Blauer Drive. He felt that locating Starbucks at the center of the shopping center would be a more appropriate location. He expressed concern with the items listed in the staff report as follows: 1) If staff does not believe that there will be additional traffic, why is the business being expanded? He did not believe that a business would expand if there was not going to be additional traffic associated with the expansion. 2) Staff is recommending approval of signage for the business even though the applicant did not include signage as part of the application. He felt that a three foot, internally illuminated 30+ foot above ground sign has to be the highest illuminated outdoor sign in Saratoga without being requested by the applicant. 4) The nearest residence is located 100 feet from the outdoor arcade and will result in a noise impact to the residents. 5) The resolution states that the use is not materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity and that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project. He expressed concern that a Starbucks, located 160 feet from residences, would impact damage property values, especially if there is outdoor seating available from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. He stated that another site has always been available for this use. This is the third time that area residents have come before the Commission and that it would be a fourth time for the signage issue. He noted that Starbucks started in the middle of the shopping center and that it has incrementally moved its way down the shopping center. He felt that there should be a time that the city stands up and state that area residents matter too. He encouraged the Commission to consider the area residents concerns this evening. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 4 - Bill Mullen, 12960 Regan Lane, stated that he originally understood that Starbucks was to be located in the center of the shopping center. He said that at that time, it was not pleasing but that it was a tolerable situation. He said that the latest communication is that it is to be located at the end of the shopping center and that it is to be expanding its footprints, raising significant issues. He expressed concern with the following: 1) noise impacts associated with outside seating, changing the nature of the neighborhood; and 2) safety concern for the neighborhood and the community, specifically on Regan Lane as this is as shortcut to the shopping center. He said that the expansion would result in the attraction of individuals outside the neighborhood who would like to by pass Saratoga Avenue. He expressed concern with the safety of young individuals in the neighborhood and evening walkers as the neighborhood has no sidewalks or lighting. He felt that Starbucks would increase the traffic pattern and increase the safety risk to the neighborhood. The lack of addressing this concern is extremely short coming. He felt that the city has taken the neighborhood and significantly changed the climate and the atmosphere that most individuals paid a tremendous amount of money to acquire. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that he has been a long time resident of Saratoga, being a resident before the shopping center was built. He said that he did not support a Starbucks in Saratoga, noting that there is not a business that looks like it in the Village. He felt that this use belongs on Lawrence Expressway. He was advised that the proposed hours of operation were 6:30 a.m. to 11:0 p.m. He felt that the hours were too long as this is a residential neighborhood, even though a commercial strip zone is located in this area. He said that residents do not want cars coming in and out of the shopping center. He informed the Commission that "kids" hang out at Safeway and the parking lot, often times resulting in the police being called to the shopping center. He felt that once Starbucks establishes a foothold similar to Safeway, they would request a 24-hour operation. He felt that the city was forgetting that this is a residential neighborhood based on the renovation of the Argonaut Shopping Center. Denise Levy, 12915 Regan Lane, stated that she also attended several meetings relating to the shopping center. She stated that her main concern was that of her seven year old who rides her bike to school with her father. She also has a fourteen year old son going to school. The atmosphere of having Starbucks on the corner is a nightmare to her. She felt that the middle of the shopping center would be more conducive location for Starbucks as it would be more pleasant than looking over the office buildings on Blauer and into the bedrooms of residential homes. She found that putting people outside, on sidewalks adjacent to residents would be a noise impact to adjacent residents. She stated her opposition to the request as she felt that there were better locations in the shopping center. She also expressed concern about the traffic and the safety of area children/residents. Bruce Prestwich, 20244 Blauer Drive, felt that the use permit was a big mistake, noting that Starbucks was denied at the Village. He said that he was lead to believe that Starbucks was to be located in the middle of the shopping center. He requested that the Commission deny this location and that the use be approved at another location where families and children would be subjected to the traffic associated with the use as Blauer Drive is already experiencing problems with traffic and speeding cars. Lisa Traxler, 20390 Blauer Drive, stated her opposition to the expansion and outdoor seating of the Starbucks Coffee Shop. She said that her sons' and her foster child's bedroom window face the shopping center. She expressed concern that the outdoor seating would give individuals the opportunity to observe her children. This condition was unacceptable and unsafe for her family. She said that the prior businesses in place before the shopping center was renovated closed well before 11:00 p.m. and did not infringe in the enjoyment of her yard in the evenings. She felt that Starbucks would be better located closer to Safeway where traffic, noise, and litter would not be an impact to neighbors. She felt that a new traffic study was warranted for the outdoor seating. She said that 15 parking spaces of 33 are proposed to the Blauer side of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 5 - the building. Marcella Mahern, real estate manager for Starbucks, clarified that this application is for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit. The conditional use permit was granted for the site on this exact corner. When the landowner mentioned to Starbucks that there would be an opportunity to lease a bigger space, Starbucks took advantage of this fact because it wanted to create a store that had a nicer environment where additional components could be added to make the business more comfortable to its customers. The addition of outdoor seating was to go in with the overall vision of the shopping center to make it an inviting place where residents in the neighborhood would come and enjoy the outdoors. She did not believe that there would be a drastic increase in either traffic or seating capacity of the store. She sees Starbucks as serving individuals who are already passing by the shopping center on their daily commute or coming from the neighborhood. She said that she was not aware of the misconception that Starbucks was planned to be closer to Safeway. When the redevelopment of the shopping center was brought to Starbucks attention, Starbucks was offered the same space that it was originally offered. Therefore, there was not an alternative to Starbucks. She asked if the sign criteria was proposed to be modified this evening? She stated that Starbucks' sign will be in conformance with the sign criteria. Planner Bradley clarified that the sign program for the shopping center is up for review this evening, mainly to address the colors proposed at the end of the agenda. Paul Smith, Starbucks district manager, informed the Commission that Starbucks has systems in place in all of the stores where there employees collect trash on frequent intervals. At the last hearing, it was stated that someone will walk outside the store at least three to four times a day picking up trash. He clarified that the hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., opening at 6:00 a.m. on weekends. Commissioner Bradley clarified that the resolution before the Commission is identical to the one previously approved by the Commission with the exception of the requested modifications. Rhonda Rigenhagen, community relations manager for Starbucks, addressed the issue of noise and stated that it is just as important for Starbucks that this be an enjoyable environment for its customers who are also their neighbors. She said that noise has not been an issue with existing stores. She said that only 2 stores out of 200 in northern California have had some on going problems with noise, one relating to heating/air ventilation. Starbucks managers try to be responsive to concern or complaints relating to noise, trash or other issues in the neighborhood. She encouraged anyone who has problems to contact the store manager. If there is an issue and if it is not addressed to their satisfaction, that either Paul Smith or herself be contacted and that they would make sure that the issues are addressed. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was instrumental in the last use permit review to get a commitment from Starbucks to police the grounds for trash. She stated then and states now that she feels that there is some laxity among the employees in performing this chore. She clarified that a use permit exists that would allow Starbucks to locate in the shopping center and that this is not the issue before the Planning Commission this evening. She said that the Commission expects that Starbucks will honor this part of the agreement because she will be watching to make sure that it is honored. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Pierce stated that he grew up in the Argonaut area, living there for 20 years and his parents for 40 years. He said that he was familiar with the area and that he knows the shopping center quite well. He said that the Argonaut Shopping Center has been an on-going issue in his tenure on the Commission. The Commission has also dealt with Starbucks several times, having approved the conditional use permit PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 6 - for Starbucks for the shopping center following the public hearing. It was his belief that this is a good use for the shopping center and stated that he voted for it before and that he would be voting for it again. He said that he has observed several Starbucks in the greater San Jose area. He said that he was aware of Commissioner Kaplan's concern about trash. He felt that Starbucks was a well run organization and that it would be a credit to the city of Saratoga and to the shopping center. He stated that he understood the neighbors' concerns, acknowledging that the residents purchased their property knowing that they were buying property adjacent to a major shopping center in Saratoga. He felt that this was an appropriate use and that he would be supporting it. Commissioner Page said that this is his first review of the Starbucks' use permit. He said that he has visited several Starbucks and that he has observed and watched to see the operation as he knew that the use permit would be coming up. In reviewing the minutes of the last use permit hearing, there were a lot of questions whether there would be the addition of an outdoor seating area. He felt that the building overhang would deter some of the noise. He strongly recommended that signage be approved that would respect the neighbors. He also recommended that direction be given to the police department to patrol the area a little more in the beginning to ensure that the use stays friendly to the neighborhood. He stated that he could support the use permit knowing that the use permit can be called up if there are issues of concern. He said that he would be watching the use permit very closely. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Pierce and Page. She stated that various degrees of presentations have been made by the Starbucks' corporation representatives. She stated that she has observed a Starbucks near her office recently that installed outdoor seating because she had questions about what it would do to traffic near the area as it is located adjacent to an elementary school. She also observed the cleanliness and the noise factors. She stated that the noise factor was not an issue. She was not sure why people drinking coffee would be expected to be noisier than people in general. She stated that she would support the request because what the Commission is dealing with is a relatively minimal expansion in the square footage which should not impact the neighborhood. She felt that the outdoor seating is a nice addition to Saratoga and that it might make the shopping center more user friendly. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the reason a Starbucks was not approved at the Village was because there was not adequate parking in the Village and for the safety issue associated with the corner lot. She said that a use permit was granted to the Starbucks Corporation to use this location. The issue before the Commission is whether additional interior space and outdoor seating will be approved at the perimeter. She felt that individuals would meet quietly, talk, and visit. She noted that Safeway is a 24-hour establishment, serving a need. She said that Starbucks will not be opened 24-hours. She felt that citizens need a place to meet and that she felt that this is a minimal addition to the existing use permit. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Murakami noted that from some of the testimony received from the neighbors, they had an idea that the proposed use was to be located at the middle of the shopping center. He said that some of the earlier plans may have depicted its location in the center of the shopping center. However, when the Commission voted on the use permit last time, its location was clear at its present location. He was sorry that the neighbors did not notice its location at the time of the approval of the use permit. He concurred with his fellow Commissioners that the use permit was examined closely and that it would continue to be monitored to ensure that the business complies with the conditions to mitigate neighbors' concerns. He stated that he would also approve the request. Chairwoman Bernald stated that this is a difficult decision because she has seen how emotionally the neighbors are and that she understood their concerns. She said that it would be an ideal situation for the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 7 - city to have a community area where it could have its young children meet, a community area where the city could make sure that the children can gather. However, given the fact that the neighbors are so emotional about this issue, she would be voting against the request. She informed the public that should the amendment to the use permit be approved, they would have 15-days to appeal the decision to the City Council. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-97-004.1. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH CHAIRMAN BERNALD VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 3. UP-93-008.1 (503-24-072) - BLUE ROCK SHOOT-CUTLER/WHITE, 14523 Big Basin Way; Review of a Use Permit approved on December 14, 1994 to operate a restaurant on Big Basin Way with coffee roasting below the restaurant. The Planning Commission has requested this permit be called up for their review to re-evaluate the hours of operation and coffee roasting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley informed the Commission that two letters were submitted this evening. One letter is from the business owner of Tiger, Tiger, Fine Decorating Gifts stating that the roasting of coffee beans drive her customers out as they are curious as to what is on fire. The smoke that comes into the shop makes the business owner's eyes water and leaves the order on the merchandise. It was requested that the offensive smoke and smell stop. Another letter was received from the business owner of Exclamation Point indicating that several customers have noticed and complained about the odor from coffee roasting during business hours. Classes are offered several days a week in which an individual could be at the business five hours at a time. The letter states that the smell from coffee roasting is pervasive. It was stated that the business would be in favor of a ban on coffee roasting in the Village area between the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Planner Bradley indicated that the use permit for the Blue Rock Shoot Coffee Shop is before the Planning Commission to review the conditions of project approval. She said that both staff and Planning Commissioners have received complaints about coffee roasting at the business. Staff recommended that a condition be added to the original resolution to limit roasting to the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (overnight). She informed the Commission that the City has the authority to levy a fine of $250 per day if future violations were to occur. Commissioner Pierce asked how the coffee roasting hours were derived? Planner Bradley responded that staff tried to consider when most of the downtown business would be closed except for the restaurant uses and would have the least impact on the businesses and the neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Mitchell Cutler, partner at Blue Rock Shoot/Saratoga resident, stated that he was unclear why he was present this evening. He said that he was requested to be present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. He stated that he had conversations with Community Development Director Walgren who explained the concerns of a couple of residents about coffee roasting. At the request of Commissioner Pierce, Mr. Cutler explained the process for roasting coffee as being a process where the green coffee beans go through a roaster. The chaff from the particular matter of the beans goes out into the air through an exhaust vent. He said that typically, the business burns once or twice a week and that the roasting process would take approximately two hours. He informed the Commission that the hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00-11:00 p.m. He indicated that the business currently roasts its coffee in the evening at the request of Community Development Director Walgren approximately a year ago. He indicated that he was surprise to be in attendance this evening to address roasting coffee beans in the daytime as coffee roasting is not occurring during the daytime hours. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Patrick stated that assuming that coffee beans are only roasted in the evening, from the operation of the business perspective, what are the most convenient or conducive hours for roasting coffee beans? She asked if there was any reason why the odor in the atmosphere is different from any other coffee shop? Mr. Cutler responded that Community Development Director Walgren requested that coffee roasting occur after 5:00 p.m. Therefore, roasting of coffee beans occurs between 6:00-8:00 p.m. He indicated that coffee roasting is exactly the same as the roasting that takes place at International Coffee, indicating that International Coffee's method is entirely by fire where the Blue Rock Shoots' roasting is electrically conducted. Therefore, it was a different way of achieving the same end result. He said that it was interesting to see that the International Coffee business was not on this evening's agenda to restrict their roasting coffee hours. Commissioner Patrick stated that she has smelled coffee beans roasting from Blue Rock Shoot during the daytime in the past year. It was her observation that there is a particular odor from the Blue Rock Shoot that is different from other coffee shops. She stated that it may be attributed to a different degree of roasting doneness or another factor. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the issue of roasting coffee beans has been on going. She stated that the Commission has before it three letters from Mr. Walgren to Mr. Josh White. The Commission also has a list of when complaints were made, indicating that roasting was currently being conducted at 3:30 p.m. She stated that she has to assume that individuals in the Village whose eyes and noses are burning are not making the complaints up and that the Commission has to rely on the complaints received. She informed Mr. Cutler that the reason he was requested to be present this evening was due to the fact that the Commission continues to receive complaints. Mr. Cutler informed the Commission that he has been forwarded the letters sent by Community Development Director Walgren. He has discussed these letters with Mr. White and Mr. Walgren. At the time of discussion, there was an agreement that Blue Rock Shoot was not to roast coffee during the daytime and that roasting would only at night. It was his belief that the letters being received by the Commission are coming to the Commission for other reasons and not specifically to the roasting issue. He felt that the city had unhappy neighbors in the Village and that they were looking at this as a vehicle to limit his business. Chairwoman Bernald informed Mr. Cutler that she is a neighbor of the Blue Rock Shoot. She indicated that she has been in the downtown area at 3:00 p.m. and has personally experienced Blue Rock Shoot's roasting. She was in the vicinity on Thursday, January 28, 1999 at 3:35 p.m. at which time her eyes started to water and that she became uncomfortable. She stated that she could not detect the smell at the time due to a cold. She was informed by an individual that the Blue Rock Shoot was roasting coffee again. She became aware that her eyes had been burning due to the roasting of coffee beans. She stated that she has been in the vicinity at other times after Blue Rock Shoot had roasted coffee. She has received indications from other individuals and she has received photographs indicating that coffee is being roasted during the daylight hours as smoke can be seen and it obliterates Big Basin Road. She stated that this issue is not something personally against Mr. Cutler because of his neighborliness or lack thereof but that it is because coffee has been roasted. She stated that she also observed coffee being roasted on the following dates: Friday, August 14, 1998, 3:00 p.m.; Wednesday, August 19, 1998, 4:30 p.m.; Thursday, August 27, 1999, 4:45 p.m.; Wednesday, September 2, 1998, 4:58 p.m. Josh White, Blue Rock Shoot, informed the Commission that he conducts all coffee roasting for Blue Rock Shoot. He stated that the allegations are false. He said that he spoke with Mr. Walgren approximately a year ago. Since that time, he has not roasted during the daytime. He stated that he comes in at 3:30 a.m. to roast coffee so that he does not have to roast during the day. He also indicated that he does roast in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 9 - evening hours. He personally guaranteed that there is to be no roasting during the daytime. Tracy Cutler, Blue Rock Shoot, stated that the coffee roasting issue was initiated by one neighbor in particular who has a dislike for the Blue Rock Shoot business and who has been harassing the owners for the past six years. She indicated that there have been many run ins with this particular individual who originally rallied up the neighbors to say something about the coffee roasting. Since the business owners have been advised that the coffee roasting was bothering individuals, the business changed its coffee roasting operations. She stated that there is a personal issue going on and felt that there was something deeper going on than just the smell of coffee. Chairwoman Bernald read into the record a letter received from Judy and Don Colter stating that business owners in the Village have indicated that they and their customers find the odor of coffee roasting very offensive with its smell lingering in their stores long after the smoke disappears. Numerous complaints have been filed with city hall about the smoke and smell clear back to when Mr. Peacock was city manager, noting that nothing has changed. The letter goes on to indicate that current city manager Larry Perlin observed the roasting and yet it continues. The business owners request that the obnoxious roasting stop. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she could not speak about the animosity among the business owners. Given the state of the Big Basin shopping center, she felt that individuals should work together, making something out of this city. The issue before the Commission and over the course of time is the fact that the Commission has received complaints enumerated in the staff report, including a daytime roasting as recently as March 17, 1999 which was not indicated. The Commission is requesting that roasting occur at an hour when it will not disturb individuals. She stated that she personally observed coffee roasting during the daytime. She recommended that the hours for roasting coffee be made later in the evening as individuals are still eating in restaurants at 7:00 p.m. Including the specific hours for roasting coffee in the use permit will put the business owners on notice. If further violations occur, further actions may be taken against the business. Commissioner Murakami stated that he also noticed coffee roasting during the day when he was at the Village. He felt that identifying the hours for roasting coffee was a good way to solve the problem, monitoring the use more closely. He stated his agreement with the recommended modification to the use permit. Commissioner Patrick stated that no one on the Commission wants Blue Rock Shoot to go away. She felt that the way that the business appears to be operating is not noisy or a bad element. She felt that the business was a wonderful addition to the Village, allowing individuals to gather. She stated that she was curious to know why the smoke smell was different from the International Coffee business. She felt that staff's recommendation would resolve the issue before the Commission, noting that the recommendation appears to be acceptable to the business owners. Therefore, she would support the amendment to the use permit. Commissioner Page stated the he felt that the Blue Rock Shoot was a great business and that he was glad to see that there was a coffee shop where individuals can be quiet and have a cup of coffee. Based on the business owners' testimony that they do not roast coffee during the day, he could support the amendment to the use permit as it would not impact the operation of the business. Commissioner Pierce stated that he did not hear opposition to the amendment from the business owners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 10 - Therefore, he stated his support of the amendment to the use permit, restricting the hours of coffee roasting. Chairwoman Bernald said that she concurred with everything that has been stated. She felt that Blue Rock Shoot is a contribution to the downtown neighborhood and that it was an important asset. She felt that individuals appreciate Blue Rock Shoot services in the downtown. She stated that she has personally experienced daytime coffee roasting, noting that she does not have a personal grudge to bare against the Blue Rock Shoot business owners. She stated that she could not speak to the relationship with the other business owners, noting that this is not the issue before the Commission. The issue before the Commission is roasting coffee. She noted that the business owners have indicated that they do not have a problem roasting coffee in the evening. Therefore, what is before the Commission this evening is to set the hours for roasting coffee. Should there be experiences of acrid coffee being roasted, Blue Rock Shoot business owners will be fined once it is brought to the city's attention. Once it is brought to the city's/Planning Commission's attention that coffee is roasting in hours other than those specified in the resolution, the use permit will be called up and that the use permit will be in jeopardy. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-93-008.1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 4. V-98-001.1 (503-26-028) - BAGNAS, 14005 Wildwood Way; Request for modification to an approved Variance for side and rear setbacks. The property is 3,572 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1-10,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report and informed the Commission that staff findings can be made to support the modification and therefore recommended Commission approval of the variance request. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Marilyn Bagnas, property owner, informed the Commission that after she received the building permit to build on the property, she spoke to her neighbors only to find out that a marker of an old fence post that borders the two properties was in error. She stated that she went ahead and used the markers. She stated that she was not required, at time of issuance of building permit, to retain the services of a land surveyor. She recognized that she made an error. Knowing that an error was made, she contacted a land surveyor after being told to stop the project. At this point, the foundation had been poured, noting that the framing has been completed. She was not present to point fingers but to ask the Commission to approve the variance modification on the property as it would be a hardship to do otherwise. Commissioner Kaplan asked what rooms/windows are proposed for the back wall which is being pushed into the setbacks? Mrs. Bagnas responded that the kitchen and the dining rooms are designed for the back of the home. Commissioner Kaplan noted that kitchens and dining rooms are heavily used rooms in a house. If putting a heavily used room where people are going to be for a good portion of the waking day this close to the neighbors, the people there today may not be there in the future nor would the Bagnas family. She expressed concern that it is not known what type of uses would be developed on the vacant properties. She stated that she has seen what happens when an individual builds into the setbacks and violate the codes. She stated that she has a difficulty with the variance request, understanding that the building is framed. She was not sure whether the entire structure would have to be taken down or that there may be a remediation that can be done. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 11 - Planner Bradley indicated that this is an awkward lot. She said that the longer dimension is the side to side. The front is that portion that faces the neighbors on Wildwood that back up to Fourth Street. The rear is the lot line that is adjacent to the vacant parcel. She clarified the property line which the house is sitting too close to. Norman Payne, licensed surveyor, stated that he performed a foundation survey across the street and found some markers that have been set on a Record of Survey. The problem is that Wildwood Way has been established by Record of Survey and was marked out at a point in time. However, all the lots were never developed by subdivision nor developed by deed. These are deed description lots. To his knowledge, the lots have never been monumented unless done by redwood stakes. He did find the line in question which did not have a fence, only shrubbery. He met with Mr. Bagnas who informed him how he established the property line, showing him the fence corner. He said that the end where the dining room is proposed is within five inches of being six feet. He indicated that the end of the building closest to the property line is where the garage is proposed. He stated that once the landscaping is installed, Mr. Bagnas has requested that he set the property corners and follow the Record of Survey to perpetuate the location of the lot. Everet Killian, 14395 Wildwood Way, stated that he discussed this unique situation with most of the neighborhood and informed the Commission that he was the individual who pointed out the marker as being the fence post. He stated that having the structure close to his property does not bother him as it is only encroaching a few inches on his end. He requested that the Commission approve the request as it is not a problem with any of the neighbors who he has spoken to. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the piece of property contiguous to the home can be built upon? Planner Bradley stated that it was her belief that there are two lots owned by one individual that can be developed as a residence(s) in the future with access through Wildwood Way. Mr. Killian informed the Commission that a private street exists and that the property owner of the two lots to the rear had a paper signed several years ago by several residents when it was first closed off because there was a problem with the park. Should the back two lots develop, access would have to be gained either through Wildwood Way or Springer. He felt that this was a decision that would be made by the neighbors. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page felt that an honest mistake was made in this case. However, when he reads from the guidelines from which the Commission has to choose from, it states that things have to be done in a certain order such as hiring a licensed surveyor to survey the lot. He noted that a letter is attached to the staff report which indicates acceptance of the risk if something is wrong. He did not believe that a precedent would be set as anyone else coming before the Commission would be scrutinized. He stated that he would support the variance as presented. Commissioner Pierce stated that in looking at the site, it is located in a nice neighborhood. He felt that the house would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He said that it appears that the applicant was somewhat careless in not following the rules. He asked staff if there was a monetary penalty that could be imposed on the property owner as part of the variance for failing to follow the guidelines? Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the resolution has been conditioned that would fine the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 12 - property owners $250 per day of violation. The Commission could direct staff to assess the monetary damage and that staff could determine the appropriate number of days for violation. Commissioner Pierce felt that there should be some sort of penalty as the applicant made a mistake and the Commission will be granting an exception. He would recommend that staff be directed to determine the numbers of day that the violation occurred. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that planning staff will review and determine the days of violation with the building department. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he could support the variance with the imposition of a fine. Commissioner Kaplan reiterated her comment concerning what would happen when individuals start moving into small lots and crunching up against their neighbors, causing problems in the future. She said that she was given an incorrect orientation at the site visit as she felt that the home would be abutting the property that has a house on it and could legitimately be impacted by heavy use in both homes. She said that someone will be building on the vacant lots and that they would need to be notified that a variance has been approved so that when their home is built, they know that a home is built close to them. She agreed that a fine would accomplish one not setting a precedent that this is a free ride to a variance, noting that the action took staff's and the Planning Commission's time to review the violation. She felt that the city should be paid back. Therefore, she would approve the variance and a fine as deemed appropriate by staff. Commissioner Murakami stated that he originally liked the design of the house and felt that it was a very nice fit into the neighborhood. Unfortunately for the applicant, they made a mistake even after being warned. He agreed with Commissioners Pierce and Kaplan that the Commission cannot let this mistake slide. He felt that there was enough of a mistake made that needs to be addressed. He stated that he would agree to vote for the variance that was created by the applicants in their error and that he would agree with the decision that the applicants be fined for making this error. He stated that he would support the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Patrick stated her disagreement with the comments expressed. She stated that unfortunately, on these small lots, the commission deals with inches. The Commission has individuals coming before the Commission begging for inches. Now, people are stating that it is only a couple of inches and that it is not a big deal. She acknowledged that it was a couple of inches in some areas but felt that they should be given back if they were only a couple of inches. She stated that she is opposed to individuals continuing to build on their homes once they become aware that there is a problem, resulting in the homeowner coming before the Commission stating that it would be a hardship to make them tear down the structure. She opposed two people coming before the Commission begging for the inches and being aware of them, maximizing what can be done on the lot, later to complain that the home was sited in the wrong area. She felt that the applicants made a mistake. She said that someone was made aware at the design review hearing that the siting of the home was important on this small lot as the Commission went through the siting of the home very minutely. She said that none of the current neighbors object to the variance because the home is further away from them. However, when the vacant lot develops, owners of the vacant lots will be the ones penalized because the home will be closer to them and they will not be able to maximize their home on their lot. She stated that she opposed the variance and recommended that the home be sited appropriately, pursuant to the previous resolution. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Patrick. She stated that she has a small lot in another town and that she began to build on it and that she was out of line, being two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 13 - feet further than she was supposed to be. She had to stop work and redo construction. She knew how this would have affected the neighbors and that for all the reasons stated by Commissioner Patrick, she could not support the variance application. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was convinced that her first inclination was correct. Once the property owner knew about the mistake, they proceeded at their own peril. She stated that she would support Commissioner Patrick's and Chairwoman Bernald's recommendation of denial. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-98-001.1 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION THAT AN APPROPRIATE FINE IS TO BE ASSESSED. THE MOTION FAILED 3-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: MURAKAMI, PAGE, PIERCE; NOES: BERNALD, KAPLAN, PATRICK; ABSENT: MARTLAGE. 5. DR-99-004 & V-99-001 (503-26-007) - JAFARI, 20860 Fourth Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,177 sq. ft., two-story residence with a 1,468 sq. ft. basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 21 feet, 8 inches. Variance approval is requested to allow an 8 foot 10 inch second story side yard setback where a 10 foot setback is required. Three ordinance-protected trees are proposed to be removed: a Coast Live Oak, a Mexican Fan Palm and a Monterey Cypress. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson informed the Commission that a letter was received dated April 26, 1999 from the applicant stating that when they submitted the application, they were doing so with the understanding that staff would support the variance. The letter indicates that the applicant was not aware until last week that staff would not support the variance. He stated that the applicant is requesting that the Commission continue the project so that they can work with staff to eliminate the need for the variance. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 12, 1999. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 6. DR-99-007, UP-99-007 & V-99-002 (397-24-007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the remodeling/construction of a new 2,396 sq. ft., single-story residence and a detached garage of 601 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. Variance approval is necessary to allow an exterior wall to remain only two feet, six inches from a side property line where a six foot side yard setback is required. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson informed the Commission that the applicant may be requesting a continuance on this item but that he did not have the request for continuance in writing. As Planner Pearson was presenting the staff report, Scott Duncan, applicant, requested that this item be continued. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Scott Duncan, applicant, reiterated his request for a continuance for the variance to the next available meeting date. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Duncan would like the opportunity to meet with the Commission in a study session. Mr. Duncan responded that he would like the opportunity to sit down and meet with his PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 14 - neighbors. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 12, 1999. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 7. UP-99-004 & DR-99-023 (503-23-021) - SIEVERT, 20571 Brookwood Lane; Request for Use Permit approval to locate a 971 sq. ft. garage/cabana with a maximum height of 12 ft. within the rear yard setback of a 15,930 (net) sq. ft. parcel located in an R-1-15,000 zoning district. A request for Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing 1,820 sq. ft. single-story residence and construction of a new single-story 3,157 sq. ft. residence with a maximum building height of 18 ft. is also proposed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that the project has been reviewed by the City arborist and other city departments. She said that there are a few trees proposed to be removed as part of this plan. Trees No. 4 & 8 are walnut trees that are considered to be in fair to poor health by the city arborist and are proposed to be removed. Tree No. 6, a Monterey Pine, was initially referred to as a fine specimen by the city arborist. She noted that a follow up memo from the arborist who reviewed the tree again and indicates that the tree is showing some signs of distress. Staff is proposing replacement value trees be provided. She mentioned that the plan before the commission has been changed so that tree nos. 1, 2 and 3, the cluster of oaks to the right lower corner against Brookwood Lane would not be impacted and informed the Commission that the applicant has incorporated the city arborist's recommendations regarding the low fence and the posts. She noted that the property is constrained by a very unusual configuration in addition to the trees discussed. The proposed residence would meet all the current setbacks and floor area requirements unlike the present residence which intrudes into the side and rear setbacks. She informed the Commission that the applicant has worked with staff on the material board and the design in order to utilize colors and materials that would integrate the home well within the setting. Staff feels that the design of the residence meets all the necessary findings and therefore staff can support the design review application. The application is also requesting a use permit to allow the garage/cabana three feet from the rear property line with a maximum height of 12 feet. Staff feels that given the topography of the site as well as the step slope of the adjacent property, the use permit would have minimal, if any, impact on the adjacent neighbor. Staff feels that the design is compatible with the proposed residence and that staff can support the use permit. Commissioner Page asked if a staff member approves the ISA certified arborist who will assist in the pruning of the trees? Planner Ratcliffe responded that a certified arborist will submit a letter to the city who will be doing the pruning work. Commissioner Patrick noted that the Commission does not have plans for the cabana but that it appears that it is to include two bedrooms. She asked if there was a likelihood from where it is situated that it is going to be residential in nature. Planner Ratcliffe responded that if the cabana was to be used as residential, it would have to have some sort of bathroom and kitchen facility which would not be permitted. The Commission could add a condition to the resolution that the cabana is not to be used as a secondary residents and that a bathroom and kitchen facility is not to be added to the structure. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the cabana and garage are being built into a rear setback, and asked why is it being considered a use permit instead of a variance request? Planner Ratcliffe responded that this can be considered through a use permit process as long as a garage or accessory structure if it is encroaching the rear yard setback. When an accessory structure intrudes upon a side yard setback, it would require a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. Randy Sievert, applicant, concurred with staff's recommendation. He informed the Commission that his architect was not present this evening. Commissioner Murakami referred to the roof plan and asked if the structure is to have an opening in the middle of the house? Larry Hall, project manager, informed the Commission that the middle of the home is designed to have a flat roof in the middle of the home. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick stated that given the unusual configuration of the lot and the intrusion of trees on the lot that this may be the only appropriate siting of what the applicant is attempting to do. She did not believe that the request was implausible nor incompatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, she stated her support of the request. Commissioner Murakami agreed that this was an unusual lot and that the home seems to be designed to fit the lot. He felt that the design was appropriate and matches the neighborhood as much as it can. He felt that the trees have been addressed very thoroughly. Therefore, he stated that he could approve the request. Commissioner Page concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Kaplan concurred that the lot is constrained. Commissioner Pierce stated that he could support the project. He said that the Commission was shown a nice rendering at the site visit. If he had not seen the rendering, he would have been confused about the stained accent. He said that the rendering looked very nice and that he felt that the home would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. He stated that he could support the request. Chairman Bernald concurred with the comments as expressed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVED RESOLUTION UP-99-004. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-023. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 8. DR-99-002 (517-20-015) - KLINE, 20121 Hill Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,800 sq. ft. single-story residence and construct a new two-story 4,253 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 24 ft. on a 22,651 sq. ft. parcel located in an R-1-20,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She said that a 36" tree noted on the plans was not addressed in the arborist report and that the proposed construction does not come within 10-12 feet of the tree. The existing house to be demolished comes 10-12 feet of the tree. She noted that there is an existing shed that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 16 - is close to the oak tree. Staff has included as a condition of approval that the arborist revisit the site and address the demolition of these two structures and that the applicant follow the arborist's recommendation as far as demolition and tree protection measures. She informed the Commission that the property slopes down from Hill Road which would further reduce the size and bulk of the home from neighboring residences. She indicated that the concerns that staff has had from the beginning is not the objection to the architectural style of the home as it is well thought out. Staff has concern whether the architectural style is appropriate for this neighborhood as the neighborhood is largely older single story, horizontal wood shingle homes. She said that there are two homes on the historic registry located on the same block. Staff has had some concern about the finding that the home is compatible in size and bulk with the rest of the neighborhood. She indicated that a letter from the applicant was attached to the Commission's packet as well as a petition signed by some of the neighbors in support of the house. She stated that the home does satisfy the zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. Staff feels that the material board presented is a rather pale, creamy yellow and suggested that the color material board be altered to reflect darker, more natural earthtone colors. Commissioner Murakami referred to the rear elevation and asked if a lot of time was spent modifying the original proposal? He asked how many homes were on Hill Avenue, noting that only one person who signed the petition resides on Hill Avenue and that the rest of the residents reside on Mendelsohn or Bonnie Brae Lanes. Planner Ratcliffe stated that the rear elevation has not substantially changed since the initial application. The elevations that changed are the front elevations to give it an articulation versus having a straight, flat wall. She informed the Commission that there are approximately 15 homes within the one block area bordered by Mendelsohn, Bonnie Brae and Montalvo. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, she indicated that one of the historic homes is located on the same side of the street of Hill Avenue, two doors down. The other historic home is located on the opposite side of Hill Avenue and it is a flag lot. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Norman Kline, applicant, requested Planning Commission approval of the design review application as it will become his family's residence. He informed the Commission that the existing home is 49 years old and is in poor condition following many years of neglect and that the neighbors consider it to be an eye sore. He requested approval of a two story French Chateau design. He informed the Commission that he provided all neighbors with a copy of the exterior elevations before the Planning Department received them. The neighbors were uniformly pleased with the design of the home, none expressing an objection to the design. He stated that he would agree to change the color pallet to a brownish beige (earthtone color). He submitted drawings that further articulate the design. He did not believe that the house would be a big presence from the street and that he designed the home to be compatible with the homes two to three blocks around the home and described the styles of homes immediately surrounding his property. He said that the biggest concern of the neighbors was not having monstrous walls. The neighbors wanted the walls stepped down three to four feet, preferring no fence walls at all to keep the open space feel of the backyard. He distributed pictures of a similar design for the Commission's benefit and addressed privacy to be provided with the proposed foliage. He stated that he was concerned with tree preservation, noting that all mature trees are to be retained. He felt that the home is compatible with the existing neighborhood and that he would protect the neighbors' privacy. He stated his concurrence with the conditions of approval as stated by staff. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he liked the design and felt that the neighborhood would be able to sustain this design as there is a mixture of designs in the neighborhood. He said that the home is not as big as some of the other homes. While it was a little more mass oriented than the surrounding homes, he felt that the home would fit in. He stated that he likes to see variety in home designs in neighborhoods and that he would support the colors being muted and that he could support the project. Commissioner Page concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Pierce. He felt that it was a great design and that he liked the style of the home. He felt that it was a neighborhood of lots of choices and that the applicant may be setting the trend for future neighborhood designs as this is not a transitional neighborhood but one with many opportunities and styles. He stated his support of the project with muted colors to be worked out with staff. Commissioner Patrick felt that it was a very nice design. However, she did not believe that the design was compatible with the neighborhood. She felt that the homes in the neighborhood were contra the pictures shown by Mr. Kline. She said that the two-story element did not bother her. It was the style that bothered her and the lack of the use of wood siding. She stated that she could not support the project based on incompatibility, even though it is a lovely design. Commissioner Kaplan agreed that this is a French Chateau design. However she was not sure if this design was appropriate on Hill Avenue. She felt that the home was lovely but that she did not care for the yellow brick chimney and felt that the copper barrel dormer may be a little too much. In terms of compatibility, she did not believe that the design fits in with the neighborhood. She acknowledged that there were big homes in the area but not in the immediate neighborhood. She did not believe that this home was right for this location as it does not contain the wood elements seen in other homes. Therefore, she could not support the design. Commissioner Murakami stated that the French Chateau style incorporates a squareness in design. He did not have an objection to how the home was designed or the way it looks. He felt that the lots in the neighborhood were large enough and spread apart far enough that the home would not stand out. He felt that some of the older homes in the neighborhood would change over the years and be redesigned. After looking at the design more closely, he stated that he could vote to support the project. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she liked the design but expressed concern with the copper gutters. Commissioner Patrick stated that if the copper gutters are not treated or sealed, they would leach into the soil. Chairwoman Bernald recommended that a condition be added that would require that the copper gutters be sealed so that the concern about leaching is mitigated as a safety precaution. Otherwise, she stated that she could support the project. She agreed with Commissioner Page that this is not a transitional neighborhood but one of many opportunities and styles. Therefore, she could approve the application. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-99-002 WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) COLORS TO BE MUTED PER STAFF'S APPROVAL AND 2) COPPER ELEMENTS TO BE TREATED/SEALED. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN AND PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 9. APPEAL (503-15-041) - WONG, 21252 Chadwick Court; Appeal by the applicants of an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 18 - administrative denial of an accessory generator structure. The site is 2.8 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. She said that staff has determined that the location of the generator was inappropriate due to the impacts to the visible hillside and due to the history of controversy over the site and the fact that grading activity and retaining walls were required by the Planning Commission to be kept to a minimum on the hillside. Therefore, staff denied the applicant's request. The applicant felt that the proposed location of the generator structure to house a 23 kilowatt emergency generator was a reasonable request to attenuate sound and to screen the generator, resulting in an appeal to staff's denial. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold staff's denial and that the applicant be requested that the applicant work with staff to choose a more appropriate location on the site. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Rosemary Wong, applicant, referred to page 18 of the handout distributed to the Planning Commission this evening and a letter from Community Development Director Walgren that states that the accessory structure meets all minimum code requirements and that the accessory structure would not normally require public notification. The letter further states that he could not prevent her from requesting something that would otherwise be permitted by zoning ordinance. She requested Planning Commission approval of the accessory structure on her property. She displayed a foil that depicts the location that she and staff agreed would be an appropriate location for the generator as the front portion of the home is limited. When she first presented the plans to Planning staff, approval was given by staff and that grading commenced on the site to install the emergency generator. It was at that time that the Starks generated a complaint about grading of the hillside and wanted to know what was going on. The plans were discussed with Planning staff who then felt that she could come up with a better design. She said that there was no reason to redesign the accessory structure and recommended that an accessory structure be used to hide the emergency generator. Because of the slope of the hillside, she felt that very little of the accessory structure would be seen. This was a viable alternative as it would lesson the sound of the generator housed within the accessory structure when it goes off. It would disappear into the hillside and be a part of a continuing structure of her home. Any retaining walls to be built would be hidden into the hillside and would also be hidden by the accessory structure. She noted the location of the Starks' property in relationship to her property. She distributed a letter from the property owner located between the Starks and Chadwick Court stating support of the request before the Commission. Also, page 24 of the packet is a letter from a property owner located on the other side of Chadwick Court in support of the accessory structure/emergency generator. She noted that these two neighbors have the largest property line adjacent to her and are in support of her project. She requested Commission reconsider staff's denial of her project. Harry Wong, co-applicant, referred the Commission to page 25 of the staff report, a letter from the Starks in response to Director Walgren's letter. The first paragraph addresses the past history of this item and that the second paragraph addresses the present home. He said that tonight's meeting is not to address the present home but to address the accessory structure which does not require Commission approval. He felt that he has been harassed for three years, causing nine months of delay. He did not appreciate being accused of selling electricity back into the grid (page 15 of the staff report). He also did not appreciate the Starks sending a letter to the City Council, circumventing and accusing the Planning Commission as having lied and being unethical. It was his belief that he is here today not for the accessory structure but that the Starks are using this podium to continue a seven year battle with the Planning Commission. He recommended that the Starks and the Planning Commission settle its differences outside and not make them pawns of intermediary problems. He requested Commission support of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 19 - Mrs. Wong informed the Commission that she could not inform them as to the generator's kilowatts but that if it is to run full power, it will only run 24 hours. She said that the diesel component is a separate unit in the same location. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the information provided by the Wongs indicate that this is to be a 23 kilowatt generator. Commissioner Murakami said that he was not sure why a generator of this size was needed. He asked if this generator is going to be used during a power outage? He said that it was strange to see a structure of this size on a hillside. Mrs. Wong responded that the emergency generator was to be used during a power outage. She informed the Commission that two electricians advised her of the kilowatts necessary to serve her home during an emergency. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that her husband operates a radio station in Africa. She spoke to her husband about this issue and that he indicated that he felt that a 10 kilowatt generator would suffice for the size of the home to provide heating, lighting and electricity. Therefore, she expressed concern with the size of the generator. Commissioner Kaplan also expressed concern with the excessive size of the generator. She said that she has a generator approximately the size of a micro wave oven on her back porch. She said that the micro wave/oven size generator was more than enough to keep her home warm, intermittently, when there is a power outage. She stated that she could not imagine why, during a short period of power outage, would necessitate the use of a television, etc. She felt that a generator should be used for an emergency to provide lighting and to keep a house warm. She asked why this size of a generator was needed? Mrs. Wong responded that she received two different opinions from two electricians, both indicating that the 23 kilowatt generator was necessary to service the size of her home. She stated that she went to look at different homes of similar size and found that the homes have even larger generators. She chose to go with this smaller generator. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the original landscape plans indicate approval of a six foot deep crypt on the hillside? Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the landscape plan is displayed on the board. The landscape plans depict a pathway and small stairs going down to the winding paths. To her knowledge, the trench was dug without benefit of building permits. However, she could not state for sure that permits would be required as generally, anything over 50 cubic yards up to a depth of two feet, requires a grading permit. She indicted that the area was covered when she visited the site. Commissioner Page stated that he stood in the excavation and that it was approximately ten feet wide and a depth of approximately four feet. Based on the information provided by Commissioner Page, Planner Bradley confirmed that excavation of this size would require a grading permit. Bob Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, stated that he just read the Wong's letter and that it upsets him greatly. The letter portrays he and his wife as being unreasonable. He stated that he did not have anything against the Planning Commission, staff or anyone. He was just trying to protect his environment. When he moved to Saratoga seven years ago, he and his wife reviewed the original house plan on the Wong's property, noting that the plans are nothing that is seen today. He said that the Wong's letter illustrates why this could become a big problem as they do not consider him his neighbor. The location of the accessory building is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 20 - sited so that his home gets all the negative impacts of the building. He said that sound carries through the hills and valleys. He expressed concern with sound and views and requested that the Commission deny the request. Daisy Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, indicated that the planning of the Wong's home commenced over four years ago and ever since this time, the neighbors have been meeting with the Planning Commission every single year. She said that the Planning Commission approved the house design even though five neighbors objected to its approval. The neighbors did not believe that they would have to come before the Commission again because the home would be built according to approved plans and conditions. Shortly after the plans were approved, the Wang's started to make changes and now they want to add a structure. She stated that she can understand minor changes but felt that these were major changes. She said that neighbors share backyards, thus the need for neighborhood planning. She felt that new homes are suppose to blend in with existing homes and maintain the existing environment. She felt that the generator structure imposes on her directly in terms of sound, sight and emission. She indicated that she is a mechanical engineer, working on generators all the time. She did not believe that this was an emergency generator for a normal household. She is aware of what acoustics can and cannot do. She felt that when the generator is used, the entire neighborhood would wake up. She requested that the Commission deny the appeal. Ranjeet Pancholy, 21215 Chadwick Court, indicated that he is the property owner located at the bottom right side of the map. He said that the proposed location of the generator is not directly in his line of sight. He respected the Wong's desire to have a generator as it is a perfectly normal request. He also understood the Stark's concerns. He recommended that a compromise be achieved with the approval of a smaller generator or that the generator be relocated to an area that would be less obtrusive. Lou Basile, 15216 Cooper Avenue, San Jose, builder of Mr. and Mrs. Marcinkowski's home located between the Wong's property and Mr. Pancholy's property, informed the Commission that the Marcinkowskis wrote a letter to the City and hoped that it made it into the Commission's packet. The letter lends their support to the addition proposed by the Wongs. They felt that with staff's assistance, it will be done in good taste and that with mitigations can resolve problems that may exist. He said that the size of the generator will be determined by the load. He did not know whether 23 or 10 kilowatts would make that much of a difference to the visual impact. He noted that the Wongs were trying to tuck the accessory structure into a hill and make it part of the landscaping. He said that the exhaust will be less as there will be less pull and the noise mitigation raised can be handled. He said that he has not been requested to design a generator in any of the homes that he has built. Luanne Nieman, 13217 Padero Court, addressed the process to which the neighbors have come tonight. She objected to the fact that grading was done on the weekend. She said that she was able to hear the grading even though she was not able to see what was going on. She said that grading also occurred during the winter months and that the neighbors were assured at the time that the illegal grading was done that there would be no grading after November 1 and that there would be no grading through the winter months until about March or April. She felt that it was unusual that there was digging on the hill on the weekend in January and February. She did not even realize that the proposed structure was being built until she received the appeal notice which occurred while she was out of town. She said that she was lucky to be able to review the project today, after the fact. Planner Bradley clarified that staff sent notices to the immediately adjacent neighbors to this property that would be most impacted because this was a staff level decision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 21 - Mrs. Nieman stated that the area residents hear everything that goes on in the hill and that this emergency generator would impact her. Mrs. Wong responded to the sound issue and stated that placing the emergency generator in the accessory structure attenuates the sound to that of a leaf blower. To place it outside in a location recommended by staff would result in the generator being sited at the top of the driveway at the top of the hill. This would be louder in sound even with a sound attenuator attached to it. The Fire Department's preference would be to place the generator inside the structure for safety and sound reasons. As far as the emissions, she hopes that she will never have to use the generator except to fire it up to keep it running. She stated that she is environmentally aware that all kinds of mitigations will be performed to not pollute the environment. When originally graded, it was graded to provide enough space to attach a sound attenuator to keep the sound down. Even though it was going to be buried in the hill, it had a rolling type roof on top of it. She said that the hole seen yesterday by the Planning Commission at the site visit is not the depth that the actual structure would be on the hillside. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page asked if staff knew what the original cut and fill of the house (total). Planner Bradley responded that the driveway cut was 58 cubic yards, the residence cut was 550 cubic yards and driveway fill of 1,188 cubic yards and residence fill of 22 cubic yards, noting that the cut and fill exceeded the 1,000 cubic yard recommended limit. Commissioner Kaplan informed the Wongs that the Commission went inside the home and congratulated them on their beautiful home. She felt that this has been a long and rancorous project. She could not see a reason for a crypt with a generator on this hillside. She is familiar with the sound bouncing around the hills. She felt that this generator would have a tremendous impact on the neighbors. She stated that she did not like the fact that this much digging occurred without a permit. She felt that a generator could be accommodated under the house or under the deck located on the backside of the home. Therefore, she could not support the request. Commissioner Murakami felt that the site was inappropriate for this size of a generator. If this was a flat lot in a regular neighborhood, he felt that the generator would be acceptable. However, at this location, it would be viewed. He felt that the generator could be moved to another location, away from its proposed location. He understood that the generator would not be used often. However, when a generator of this size is fired up, they are noisy. If this is a diesel generator, it would emit a smell that is not pleasant and that the Wongs will need to be careful where the generator is placed. He felt that the Wongs have the right to have a generator, but not in this location. Commissioner Patrick stated that living in the hillside is different from living in flat areas. She suspected that once the generator is fired up, it will be at a time that individuals use their fireplaces, noting that everyone can smell a fireplace in a hillside due to the difference in air currents. Lights and noise can also be seen and heard more distinctly in the hillside. She stated that she would be more comfortable with the application if the generator was to be placed closer to the Wong's garage/retaining walls as it would be less obtrusive to the neighbors. It was her belief that she would be able to hear the generator even though her home is several hills over. Therefore, she was not inclined to approve the location of the generator. Also, she was not thrilled with the digging that occurred on the hillside as it was her recollection that this area of the hillside was fairly sensitive to slides. She said that it was unfortunate that an open hole has been dug in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 22 - this area. She felt that the Wongs should be more concerned about the area around the beautiful trees, noting that people are driving under the trees, thus compacting the dirt around the trees. She did not believe that the tree protection fencing was up at all times. Commissioner Page stated that the Commission visited the yard area of the property to try and find an alternative location for the generator. Because the Wong's property is on a hillside, he felt that the residents around the Wongs were immediate neighbors. He felt that the sound would be a great impact. He agreed with the comments that the smoke would also be an impact. With the additional cut and fill that would be required, he did not believe that it was appropriate to make another exception. Commissioner Pierce felt that the question before the Commission was whether or not it should approve the structure at its proposed location. He said that there was no question in his mind that the generator should not be approved where it is proposed as it is too much of a dramatic affect to the area, to the neighbors and to the beautiful hillside that the Commission worked so hard to save. He said that there are other issues to consider such as whether a generator of this size was needed. He personally did not believe that a generator of this size was needed. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She felt that it was a shame that this much cut was done for the generator and that she did not believe that a generator of this size was needed. Therefore, she could not support the appeal. Planner Bradley stated that per yesterday's site visit and the concerns raised regarding the trees, staff contacted the city arborist. She informed the Commission that the city arborist will be visiting the site. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS No director items were noted. COMMISSION ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION NOT TO RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE COMMISSION ITEMS. - DR-97-027.1 (397-22-030) - HARKEY, 20385 Park Place; Request for modification of an approved Design Review application to allow the door of the detached garage to face the alley. Planner Pearson presented the staff report and indicated that a use permit was approved in conjunction with the design review for the home on Park Place. The use permit was required for the garage to be placed within the rear yard setback. The original proposal had the garage door perpendicular to the alley with a curved in driveway with a 90 degree curve for cars to be able to travel from the alley into the garage. Following construction, the builder realized that the grade changed that one would experience stepping out of the back door area to the driveway. The applicant decided to locate the garage door directly facing the alley to avoid having a slope turning driveway. The applicant provided a letter from the Saratoga Fire Chief noting that "no parking" signs would be required to be posted along the alley. This would eliminate the problem of potential cars parking in the alley that would prevent access to the garage. He informed the Commission that he has spoken with the fire chief who has indicted that he may relax the requirement for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 23 - the "no parking" signs but that this is something that would need to be worked out between the fire district and the public works department. The fire chief is mainly concerned that an 18 foot wide access way is maintained. He said that there are several letters in the Planning Commission's packet from the neighbors objecting to the modification of the use permit due mainly to the concern of the limited visibility of cars coming in and out of the garage. For this reason, staff recommends that the Commission deny the request to modify the use permit. The Commission also has a letter dated April 28, 1999 from the builder's arborist verifying that the fencing around the oak tree at the front of the property is back up and the problem of debris being stored under the oak tree has been taken care of. He indicated that the city arborist will be visiting the site to inspect the fencing. Commissioner Page stated that Mr. and Mrs. Schuppert stopped by this evening to express their concerns. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the removal of the fencing was a violation of the terms and conditions of the approval? If so, is there a daily penalty that would be assessed? Planner Pearson responded that a penalty is a standard condition on all resolutions. Commissioner Page stated that there was much discussion in the letters regarding the height level of the alley/back yard elevations. He asked if this elevation is proposed to change? Planner Pearson responded that the alley elevation is not proposed to be changed. He indicated that the pad of the garage is lower than the alley and said that the alley is on a slope. If the cars are to come straight out of the garage directly onto an alley, there is less of a grade change versus the location where the driveway has been approved as there is more of a grade change. Commissioner Kaplan said that the Commission drove through the area yesterday and stated that she did not understand the problem as this is a small alley. It made more sense to have individuals back onto an apron off the street than it is to back directly onto what seems to be a smaller depth, backing onto a fence, opposite the garage door. She did not see a reason to change the design. Commissioner Patrick agreed with Commissioner Kaplan as the Commission studied this project in depth. She did not see a reason to change it. Commissioner Murakami felt that the issue should have been raised at time of design review and have the change in design incorporated at that time. He felt that it was inappropriate to change it at this time. Commissioner Pierce agreed with the comments expressed. Commissioner Page felt that this was an opportunity to install some greenery instead of cement. However, in light of the pandora box that this would be opened, he recommended that no changes be approved. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. NO ACTION TAKEN. - REVISED SIGN PROGRAM - ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER; Request to modify the sign criteria and colors for tenants at the remodeled Argonaut Shopping Center. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there were other drawings than those provided to indicate what the signage will look like? She asked how bright the internal lighting is to be? Planner Pearson informed the Commission that the project architect has not provided any renderings of the particular sign design. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 24 - stated that the applicant has broken the information into sections for the anchor tenants, the pad buildings and the rest of the tenants. All of the stores with the exception of Longs and Safeway, are proposed to have individual letters that are metal on the front and sides, internally illuminated that will shine out the back side of the letters. The letters are to be spaced approximately an inch away from the wall. The two colors proposed are black forest (green) and cranbrook for all the non national tenants. The applicant is requesting the discretion of designating certain tenants as national tenants and that the national tenants would be allowed to use their own corporate colors. Chairwoman Bernald asked if this request was a great departure from the city's sign ordinance? Planner Pearson responded that the revised sign program complies with the city's sign ordinance as the sign ordinance addresses size and location of signs. Commissioner Murakami asked if any indication has been given as to how many national tenants are going to locate in the shopping center besides Safeway, Longs, and Starbucks? Planner Pearson responded that they have not. Planner Bradley said that the sign color is a matter whether the Commission would like to see a variety in color or whether the Commission wants more uniformity in color. She indicated that no neon signs would be allowed and that all signs would be individual can, internally illuminated signs. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like to see some consistency in the colors of the signs as the building has enough color. She expressed concern with giving the landlord the discretion of calling a business national versus a local business. She did not see a need to change the sign program. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the sign ordinance does allow logos to be different than the approved colors and that they would provide a variety in color. Commissioner Patrick felt that the applicant should have learned by now that "suggested tenants" should not be indicated on the plans as this is where they got into a problem with Starbucks. She said that the question would be which businesses are national and which ones are not. She said that she has a difficulty in allowing the landlord to determine this carte blanche determination. She felt that the city's sign ordinance was clear enough that the logos of businesses with established logos can use different colors. Therefore, she was not sure if she wanted to change this. It was her recollection that the Commission has not approved the color scheme for the signs and that the applicant was to return with the proposed colors when they were selected. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like to see colored renderings or pictures that would provide the Commission with a sample sign that contained the colors proposed. Commissioner Page recommended that the circular Starbucks logo on Blauer not be illuminated to address the neighbors' concerns. Planner Pearson brought to the Commission's attention that the back side of the fourth page contains a memo from Community Development Director Walgren dated October 10, 1997 stating that sign colors were left up to staff. He indicated that Mr. Walgren designated the four sign colors from the color board from the shopping center itself. Chairwoman Bernald concurred that if there is to be any signs to be located on the Blauer side of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 25 - shopping center, that they not be illuminated. Commissioner Kaplan stated her support of the colors identified in the Commission's packet (plum, suede, rose and jade). Commissioner Page did believe that anything that reflects light should be approved. He felt the colors proposed and the light on them may be alright. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT NO INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS ARE TO BE ALLOWED ON THE BLAUER SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SIGN COLORS TO BE PLUM, SUEDE, ROSE AND JADE AS IDENTIFIED BY STAFF. - Appointment of Bicycle Advisory Committee representative. Commissioner Patrick recommended that this item be continued to the Commission's next meeting so that the new Commissioners can participate in this opportunity. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW THE NEW COMMISSIONERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE ON THIS ITEM. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that staff re-notice the election of a new vice chair since the current vice chair has been removed from office. Chairwoman Bernald noted that tonight, the City is saying goodbye to four of its Planning Commissioners: Commissioners Murakami, Kaplan, Pierce and Martlage. Together, they represent over 18 years of planning commission experience. She stated that Commissioner Murakami was thoughtful, considerate, insightful and dedicated Commission member who carefully analyzed plans, treated applicants with respect and made new members feel welcome and supported. With his departure, the Commission looses its resident historian. In Commissioner Kaplan, the Commission has had an ever vigilant watch dog who has made it her mission to protect trees and keep Saratoga free of illegally parked trucks and trailers and unsightly abandoned appliances. As a result of her determination and dedication, the City of Saratoga instituted a trend setting fireplace ordinance which will keep the air cleaner for all Saratoga citizens. She has taught new Commission members to be direct and frank and to do battle for just causes. With Commissioner Pierce, the Commission had a born arbitrator and negotiator who has worked continuously to have the Commission explore all sides of an issue and find the best possible solution. All Commissioners and applicants alike have benefited from his soft spoken and polite manner, his dedication, his consistency and his legal purview. In Commissioner Martlage, the Commission had a talented caring member, who with her artistic background and sensitive eyes has taught the Commission about balance and beauty, architecture and aesthetics. She stated that it has been a please to serve with these four special individuals. While the Commission come from different backgrounds, live in different neighborhoods and have different view points, the Commission has worked well as a team. The Commission has agreed to disagree, debate and investigate, question and vote and then move on. She stated that the Commission and the community will miss these four Commissioners and thanked them. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it has been a privilege to serve as a Planning Commissioner. She stated that she wanted to serve as a Planning Commissioner because she firmly believes that everyone has a civic responsibility and felt that the city has benefited in some regard. She has personally benefited on serving on a commission where a few individuals have rotated through the Commission, indicating that they are PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 26 - the finest people who reside in the city. She felt that this Commission in particular has been a great group. Another part of her personal satisfaction was the privilege of working with planning staff. She was sorry that Community Director Walgren was not present this evening. She wanted him to know that she appreciated the professionalism and dedication of planning staff under this tutorage. She said that it was unusual to have a majority of new commissioners coming in with no experience and that they have a lot to learn. She felt that in three to four years, they will become comfortable with their position as a Planning Commissioner. Until then, they can expect to spend three to four hours per packet, if not more. She felt that this was critical and that it was also critical that they attend the land use visits. Decisions will be made that are very important to individuals but that in the giant scheme of this world, they are insignificant. She recommended that the new Commission do the best job that it can but that it. She urged the citizenry to sit up and take notice also that demographic changes are occurring. She urged the citizenry to keep its eyes open, participate and be good citizens. She thanked everyone for the opportunity to serve the community and wished everyone well. Commissioner Murakami also thanked staff and stated that it has been a pleasure working with staff. He said that he would have liked to have said goodby to Community Development Director Walgren tonight as he has worked with him seven and a half years. He stated that this is one of the best Commissions that he has worked with. Even though it may not agree on everything, it is very civil on how it conducts itself and that there is always a good working relationship. He noted that things change and things go on. He said that he will miss the comradeship he had with the Commission and wished the Commission luck. Commissioner Pierce stated that it has been an enjoyable three and a half years for him to be involved with staff and the various commissions he has worked with. He said that the Commission has been wonderful people and staff has been great. He acknowledged that it takes time to serve as a Planning Commissioner but that it is a rewarding experience knowing that you are doing something to help the community. He felt that his experience on the Park and Recreation Commission has also made him a better citizen of Saratoga and thanked the city/community for this opportunity. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that on May 19, 1997 the City Council will be presenting proclamations to the four outgoing Commissioners. COMMUNICATIONS Written - Minutes for City Council Meeting of April 7, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1999 - Chairwoman Bernald noted that a letter was received from Ellis and Barrett, a professional law association regarding the Lau property. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, May 12, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 27 - MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk