TOWN OF WOODSIDE
2955 WOODSIDE ROAD
WOODSIDE, CA 94062
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
June 1, 2011
7:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Pursuant to Section 65009 of the California Government Code, if you challenge in court the proposed Variance,
Use Permit, Subdivision, or other planning application, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission or Planning Director at, or prior to, the public hearing.
CALL FOR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Items may be removed from the agenda or placed in another order. No items may be added to the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the posted agenda are invited to do so. Please note,
however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or to act on non-agenda items. Such
items can be referred to staff for appropriate action, which may include placement on a future agenda. As a
courtesy to others, the communication should be kept to a three-minute limit.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All of the items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be approved, including the Findings
and Conditions stated in the Staff Report for each respective item, by one roll call motion without discussion unless
a request is made by the Planning Commission, staff or public, at the beginning of the meeting, to have an item
withdrawn or transferred to the regular agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
Minutes of March 16, 2011
PUBLIC HEARING
2.
Mark Sweyer
2989 Woodside Road
CUSE#2011-0004
Planner: Deborah Dory
Review and approval/denial of proposed Conditional Use Permit for a café offering coffee, beer, wine, and food
from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week in a 1,278.6 square foot building located in the Community
Commercial district. The café is proposed to have 25 seats. The space would also be used for cooking classes and
private banquets on select days when not open as a café, with a maximum of 25 patrons.
REPORTS:
Report from Planning Commissioners and Staff on Other Meetings
a.
Staff Communications
Director’s Report for March, April and May 2011
Planning Commission Agenda
June 1, 2011
Page 1
b.
Planning Commissioners Communications
ADJOURNMENT
The Town of Woodside meeting facility is wheel chair accessible. In compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, contact the Town Clerk at (650) 8516790. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to assure
accessibility to this meeting.
APPEALS
The applicant or any other interested person may make an appeal to the Town Council on any decision of the Planning
Commission by filing an application for appeal with the Town Clerk. All application for appeals shall be received by
the Town Clerk no later than ten calendar days following the date of the action on which such appeal is being taken and
must be accompanied by the required fee. Refer to Section 153.335 through 153.338 of the Woodside Municipal Code.
ANY WRITINGS OR DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO A MAJORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AT
THE ADMINISTRATION COUNTER AT TOWN HALL LOCATED AT 2955 WOODSIDE ROAD DURING
NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 1, 2011
Page 2
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Planning Commission Meeting
March 16, 2011
Minutes
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Woodside Planning Commission was called to order on March
16, 2011, at 7:30 P.M. in Independence Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Hobson, Commissioners Elder, Rosekrans, Voelke and Yost
Absent:
Commissioner Brasher
Staff:
Jackie Young, Director of Planning and Building
Sage Schaan, Senior Planner
Linda Nesky, attorney standing in for Jean Savaree, Town Attorney
Michele Gibson, Administrative Assistant
REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair Thompson asked staff who would lead in the nominations for Chair and Vice Chair.
Jackie Young, Director of Planning and Building, stated that the Commission would begin with the
nominations for Chair, followed by the nominations for Vice Chair.
Nomination for Chair of the Planning Commission
Commissioner Voelke nominated Chair Thompson for Chair of the Planning Commission.
Chair Thompson said that she’d be delighted if another Commissioner wished to pursue this position, and
remarked that Commissioner Yost had expressed an interest.
Vice Chair Hobson made the motion to nominate Commissioner Yost as Chair of the Planning
Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rosekrans.
Commissioner Yost was nominated Chair of the Planning Commission, and proposed that Commissioner
Thompson preside as Chair for this, her final meeting as Chair of the Planning Commission.
Chair Thompson concurred.
Nomination for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission
Commissioner Voelke nominated Vice Chair Hobson for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Chair Thompson.
Vice Chair Hobson was re-elected Vice Chair of the Planning Commission.
CALLS FOR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 1
Jackie Young, Director of Planning and Building, stated that staff received a letter from an adjacent
neighbor that pertains to Agenda Item No. 3 (Desk Item), which was distributed to the Commission at the
start of the meeting.
Sage Schaan, Senior Planner, stated that there was a typographical error in both the Staff Report and
Resolution No. 2011-005. Mr. Schaan distributed the following correction to Staff Condition of Approval
No. 11:
11.
The signs shall be redesigned to have a wood background. The project architect shall work with
staff to refine the specifications determine an appropriate color for the sign background, sign
lettering, and railings. The color shall be darker than the proposed brushed stainless steel.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
Minutes of January 19, 2011
The motion was made to approve Consent Calendar.
Motion:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Commissioner Voelke / Commissioner Yost
Vice Chair Hobson, Commissioners Elder, Voelke and Yost
None
Commissioner Brasher
Chair Thompson and Commissioner Rosekrans
The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
2.
Town of Woodside (Woodside Library)
3140 Woodside Road
ASRB2011-0002/CUSE2011-0001
Planner: Sage Schaan
Review and approval/denial of a recommendation from the Architectural and Site Review Board for a
proposal to install new signs and construct an addition to the existing Woodside Library. Review and
approval/denial of a Conditional Use Permit for the Woodside Library to operate and expand in an R-1
Zoning District.
DISCUSSION
Sage Schaan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Schaan read into the record the correction to
Condition of Approval No. 11, in both the Staff Report and draft Resolution No. 2011-005:
“The project applicant shall work with staff to refine the specifications for the sign background, sign
lettering and railings”.
There were no questions for staff.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 2
Chair Thompson asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Amanda Schukle, Library Services Manager, San Mateo County Library System, spoke. Ms. Schukle said
that she would be happy to answer any questions.
There were no questions for the applicant.
Chair Thompson moved on to public hearing.
There was no one for public hearing.
Chair Thompson called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Elder / Chair Thompson
The public hearing was closed.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Commissioner Volke asked staff if alterations could be made to the project plans prior to construction
(e.g., increase interior storage capacity). Commissioner Voelke explained that interior storage needs were
discussed at a recent meeting of Friends of the Woodside Library, for which she is a Board Member.
Mr. Schaan stated that minor interior alterations might be handled during the building permit processing,
but cautioned that increases in public space (e.g., increase in public parking), or major amendments would
require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit through the public hearing process.
Chair Thompson asked Commissioner Voelke if she should recuse herself from this Agenda Item because
she is on the Board for Friends of the Woodside Library.
Commissioner Voelke stated that she would recuse herself from this Agenda Item because she is on the
Board of Friends of the Woodside Library. Commissioner Voelke left the dais.
Commissioner Elder stated that she could make the required findings in the staff report and recommend
approval of the proposed project.
Vice Chair Hobson concurred with Commissioner Elder.
Chair Thompson concurred with Commissioner Elder.
Commissioner Rosekrans expressed his support for the proposed project.
Chairman-elect Yost concurred with Commissioner Elder.
Chair Thompson called for a motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 3
ACTION
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-005, as amended, and approved the following
Conditions of Approval for ASRB2011-0005:
1.
A Staging Plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a Building Permit to delineate all material
storage areas, loading areas, construction parking, and construction restrooms. The proposed
construction staging may not occur in the right-of-way. Particular attention shall be given to
protection of the rear native plant garden during construction.
2.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit Tree Protection and Limit of
Grading Fencing Plans. These protection measures shall be installed and inspected by staff, and
shall remain in place for the duration of the project.
3.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan subject
to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
4.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay for the preliminary ADA review
completed by the Town’s consultant.
5.
Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall provide new vertical plank 6-foot tall wood
fences/gates to replace the proposed aluminum fences/gates for review and approval by staff.
6.
Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall provide new landscaping (i.e., shrubs) to screen the
new waterline backflow preventer for review and approval by staff.
7.
Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall call out a dark brown paint color for the waterline
backflow preventer. Prior to final inspection, the backflow preventer shall be painted the
approved color.
8.
Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall show that all portions of the proposed vertical plank
wood fences/gates do not exceed 6 feet, including the posts.
9.
Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall call out the paint color for the exterior components
of the fire suppression system (system riser and connection valve). The paint color shall match
the building (gray) if permitted by the Fire Code and shall be reviewed and approved by staff
prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
10. Prior to final inspection, all graded or disturbed areas shall be properly compacted and planted
with native grasses or approved planting to reduce potential erosion.
11. The signs shall be redesigned to have a wood background. The project architect shall work with
staff to determine refine the specifications for an appropriate color for the sign lettering
background, sign lettering, and railings. The color shall be darker than the proposed brushed
stainless steel. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-005, as amended, and approved the following
Conditions of Approval for CUSE2011-0001:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Subject to safety and code compliance, the applicant shall work with staff to reduce lighting,
place lighting on motion detectors, turn lights off after hours, and/or shade interior windows.
The approved lighting configuration and timing and the approved shades for the interior
windows shall not be altered without approval by Town Staff or any significant alterations shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Any significant changes, as deemed by Town staff, to occur in the operational characteristics of
the Library shall require approval of an amendment to CUSE2011-0001.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 153.056, the property shall be permitted to have up to a
maximum of 25% of the lot area as paved coverage.
Any expansion of the interior or exterior uses shall require approval of an amendment to
CUSE2011-0001.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 4
Motion:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Commissioner Elder / Chair Thompson
Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Hobson, Commissioners Elder, Rosekrans, Voelke and Yost
None
Commissioner Brasher
Commissioner Voelke
The motion carried.
The Chair announced that anyone interested in appealing the decision of the Planning Commission could
do so within ten days and should see the staff for more information.
Commissioner Voelke returned to the dais.
3.
Robert Bridger and Wendy Dransfield
330 Mountain Home Road
X2DR#2010-0001
Planner: Deborah Dory
Review and approval/denial of a proposal to install a second driveway onto Mountain Home Road in
accordance with WMC 151.44.A.
DISCUSSION
Deborah Dory, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, and stated that staff received a letter from an
adjacent neighbor prior to the start of the meeting, which was distributed to the Commission at the start of
the meeting. Ms. Dory stated that in the letter, the adjacent neighbor requested that additional landscape
screening be added along the property line of 330 and 360 Mountain Home Road, and that the use of the
proposed driveway be only periodic (i.e., as a utility driveway). The adjacent neighbor also expressed
concern that a barn could potentially be constructed by the applicant. Ms. Dory stated that staff cannot
regulate how or when the proposed driveway is used, and said that if a future proposal for a barn is made
by the applicant, that proposal would go through the public hearing process (i.e., ASRB).
Chair Thompson asked how often the proposed second driveway would be utilized by PG&E.
Ms. Dory deferred Chair Thompson’s question to the applicant.
Chair Thompson stated that she was under the assumption that this was a PG&E easement issue. Chair
Thompson asked staff why they did not anticipate this in the initial design of the subject property.
Ms. Dory stated that the proposed second driveway would be in the location of the old driveway, and the
recently completed main driveway entrance was designed as a more beautiful approach to the main
residence and winds through the redwood trees.
Chair-elect Yost asked staff if the concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbor regarding landscape
screening would have been factored into the staff report if that letter had been received earlier.
Ms. Dory stated that staff would have conducted a site visit, and if additional landscape screening was
deemed necessary, a recommendation would have been included in the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 5
Commissioner Volke remarked that it is the preference of the Town to have one driveway per property,
and asked whether this was brought up when the initial project was approved (i.e., the need for a second
driveway or easement access). Commissioner Voelke questioned why the preference wasn’t for one
driveway access that branches off within the boundary of the property.
Ms. Dory stated that there are no requirements for road access to easements (Per WMC), and this could be
a design preference on the part of the applicant.
Chair Thompson said that she understood the application is to serve the PG&E easement, and read from
Attachment No. 4 in the Staff Report:
“The secondary drive gate will have a seamless appearance to adjacent near fence, but allow for site
access to service PG&E easement”.
Ms. Dory said that the applicants’ proposal is the reasoning behind the desire for a second driveway, and
is not a requirement by staff or by WMC. Ms. Dory stated that there are utility wires that run above the
easement.
Chair Thompson asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Bob Bridger, owner, spoke. Mr. Bridger thanked the Commission for their consideration of his request,
and said that the second driveway has served as a construction entrance for the main residence during the
recently completed construction process. Mr. Bridger said that the subject driveway provides access to a
part of the property without causing potential damage to the existing meadow and redwood trees. Mr.
Bridger said that PG&E has accessed the site on a regular basis (3-4 times during construction of the main
residence), and reasoned that since the driveway is an existing road with no traffic flow or safety issues, it
seems appropriate to maintain it. Mr. Bridger briefly described the permeable surface of the driveway and
said that they will attempt to make this driveway as innocuous and invisible as possible.
Commissioner Rosekrans asked if PG&E has maintained the existing trees on site where the lines are
located.
Mr. Bridger stated that PG&E has “trimmed” the trees, but said he would not term it as “maintaining” the
trees.
Commissioner Voelke asked the owners if they intend or anticipate construction of a barn on their site,
and if they anticipate that this second driveway would be more than an occasional use driveway.
Mr. Bridger said that the second driveway is intended to be used occasionally. Mr. Bridger said that he
would rather not have a barn, or horses on his property, but if it is important to his family, he would go
through the process for the necessary permits and would consult with his neighbors for their input.
There were no further questions for the applicant.
Chair Thompson opened to public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Chair Thompson called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 6
Motion:
Commissioner Elder / Vice Chair Hobson
The public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Yost stated that he viewed the proposal as an occasional use second driveway, and said
that he would recommend approval of the proposed project with the added condition that the applicant
work with staff to provide adequate screening to the extent that it is adequate.
Commissioner Elder expressed concern with the use of two driveways along a piece of property with no
condition that would override her sense that two driveways for every residence detract from the rural
character. Commissioner Elder said that the existing fence and the primary driveway are low-key and
beautiful, and the proposed second driveway is designed to be unobtrusive, but reasoned that there will be
a curve cut and culvert which are identifying markers of a driveway. Commissioner Elder said that she is
often conscious that the reason Mountain Home Road is so lovely is that there are few curve cuts.
Commissioner Elder stated that she cannot give her approval for the second driveway.
Vice Chair Hobson asked staff if this proposed exception sets any precedent.
Linda Nesky, Town Attorney, stated that the Commission is charged with making the findings for each
individual application.
Vice Chair Hobson said that there are a number of properties in the subject area that have multiple
driveways, including the adjacent property, and if the required findings for an exception can be made,
there doesn’t seem to be any recourse. Vice Chair Hobson asked staff if this proposed project is before the
Commission because the subject site is located on a scenic corridor.
Ms. Dory stated that all requests for driveway exceptions come before the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Hobson expressed support for the proposed project, and said that the rural character of the
second driveway (i.e., permeable gravel/grass surface), landscape screening, and matching fence are less
of a visual impact than having one driveway that branches off through the redwood trees. Vice Chair
Hobson opined that parcels of this size need a facility to manage the property. Vice Chair Hobson stated
that she could make the required findings for approval of the proposed project with the added condition
recommended by Chair-elect Yost.
Commissioner Rosekrans stated that he could make the required findings for approval of the proposed
project, and suggested a provision that the proposed second driveway not be used for parking, with the
exception of service vehicles. Commissioner Rosekrans said that he knows of a property owner who uses
their second driveway for parking/storing their horse trailer, which probably would not be the intention
with this applicant.
Chair Thompson said that the applicant may not always live there.
Commissioner Voelke referred to the required finding for an exception to a second driveway which states:
“ The proposed additional egress point maintains the scenic and rural quality of the town”, and
questioned its meaning. Commissioner Voelke stated that the proposed entry gate has been designed to
blend into the existing three rail wood fence, but said that there will still be a driveway there, and that
multiple driveways are less rural. Commissioner Voelke asked if the findings are based on the size of the
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 7
lot. Commissioner Voelke said that her neighborhood is comprised of smaller lots and asked if a second
driveway is less rural on a smaller lot. Commissioner Voelke recalled past approvals (i.e., lot merger, barn
access) for second driveways. Commissioner Voelke said that the PG&E poles are not an important
reason to find that the proposal is rural.
Vice Chair Hobson asked if a property owner is required to grant PG&E access to their property.
Chair Thompson said that if that was a requirement, it should have been investigated in the initial plan.
Commissioner Voelke pointed out that there is no driveway access to the PG&E lines on the Fleishacker
Estate, and said that it is not a hardship for PG&E to walk the lines. Commissioner Voelke expressed
confusion at the ease of this required finding, which she said looks as though it was made due to the way
the entry gate blends into the existing fence, not because there is a compelling need for a second
driveway.
Chair-elect Yost asked staff how many requests for exceptions for a second driveway come before the
Planning Commission or staff. Chair-elect Yost said he would like to have an idea of precedent and asked
if it is necessary to find a reason to allow it, or in the past has it been enough that the applicant desires a
second driveway.
Commissioner Elder related three previous cases that have come before the Planning Commission:
1. Approved an exception for a large corner lot with a guest house and a main house that are
accessed on separate streets.
2. Approved an exception for a lot with a huge differential in slope. The lot was adjacent to a road
above and road below, and a second driveway was needed to access the garage.
3. Unanimously denied a second driveway off a cul de sac. The applicant appealed, and the Town
Council overturned the decision of the Planning Commission.
Chair Thompson related a case where an applicant with a corner lot requested an exception for two
driveways, which the Commission did not allow. The applicant then moved their driveway to the other
side of the street, which was not an agreeable location to the neighbors. Chair Thompson stated that the
Commission is seeing more of these types of requests, and said that approval of this proposal is equivalent
to saying second driveways are okay.
Chair Thompson said that there should be a compelling reason for a second driveway in view of the fact
that the WMC allows for one driveway, unless an exception can be made.
Chair-elect Yost said that the Planning Commission has the discression to approve an exception for a
second driveway, but each Commissioner has a different threshold of what is rural or is not.
Chair Thompson questioned staff about the project application, which states that the second driveway is
for PG&E access.
Jackie Young, Director of Planning and Building, stated that the applicant statement includes that the
second driveway could be used for PG&E overhead lines and tree pruning.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 8
Ms. Young spoke to the question regarding the two required findings brought up by Commissioner
Voelke. Ms. Young reviewed WMC 151.44 which states that:
“All residential lots shall have only one driveway with only one opening which shall be from only one
public or private serving road. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission if the following
findings can be made”:
Ms. Young briefly reviewed the two required findings per the WMC for granting a driveway exception:
(1) The proposed additional ingress and egress point meets Town standards for the line of sight, case
of public identification, and any other traffic safety considerations; and
(2) The proposed additional ingress and egress point maintains the scenic and rural quality of the
Town.
Ms. Young stated that the applicant met the first Finding, which addresses health and safety. Ms. Young
stated that the Town Engineer reviewed the Town standards for the line of site, and the WFPD reviewed
the case for public identification.
Ms. Young stated that the applicant met the second Finding, which addresses aesthetics. Ms. Young
stated that staff reviewed the specific aesthetic conditions of the proposal, such as the proximity of the
two driveways, driveway surface, and the gate design. Ms. Young said that WMC does not require that
the use of the driveway be defined. Ms. Young briefly referred to the application submitted by the owner.
Chair Thompson said that this is a staff issue, and that the easement should have been considered when
the initial design was submitted for the new residence (i.e., how the PG&E lines would be serviced).
Commissioner Voelke said that if PG&E did not have adequate opportunity to maintain the lines, they
would be contacting Town Hall.
Chair Thompson said that her issue is with the original design. Chair Thompson asked staff how old is the
plan for accessing the PG&E lines.
Ms. Dory stated that on the subject site, PG&E has historically accessed the lines from the old driveway.
Commissioner Voelke complimented Director Young on her presentation of the required Findings for an
exception to a second driveway. Commissioner Voelke said that one of the issues of concern is the focus
on ingress and egress beyond the seamless fence through to the driveway.
Vice Chair Hobson opined that the proposed driveway will not be visible when the gate is closed. Vice
Chair remarked that the WMC is extremely definitive in Section 151.44 A, in stating only one driveway is
allowed, but is extremely tolerant in the subsection listing the two required findings.
Chair Thompson stated that she can make the required findings for approval of the proposed project.
Chair Thompson stated that staff should have contemplated the servicing of PG&E lines along the
easement from the start, and said that a reason has now been created for a second driveway based on the
owners’ application (i.e., access to PG&E lines).
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 9
Ms. Young stated that the owner’s application makes a reference to a potential use for the second
driveway.
Chair Thompson said that that is its “use”.
Ms. Young said her understanding of the owner’s application is that PG&E could occasionally access the
site for line maintenance and tree trimming, but said that this is not a Use Permit. Ms. Young stated that
the majority of properties in Town have no immediate access to PG&E lines, nor would staff recommend
a driveway location for PG&E access.
Chair Thompson added: or to grant a second driveway.
Ms. Young stated that in going forward, staff can look at the pros and cons to relocating driveway(s), but
cautioned that this can also impact an entire site plan. Ms. Young stated that although the applicant made
a reference to use, it is not a Use Permit. Ms. Young stated that the two required findings deal with health
and safety and aesthetics.
Linda Nesky, Town Attorney, stated that if the findings can be made, then the exception can be granted.
Ms. Young suggested the following additional Condition of Approval if the Commission can make the
findings for project approval:
“The applicant shall work with staff to provide adequate landscape screening to minimize the visual
impact of the driveway, particularly along the southwest property line”.
Chair Thompson called for a motion.
Chair-elect Yost made the motion to approve the proposed project with the suggested Condition of
Approval stated by Director Young. Commissioner Rosekrans seconded the motion.
ACTION
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-006, and approved X2DR2010-0001 for a
second driveway entrance, with the following condition of approval:
1.
The applicant shall work with staff to provide adequate landscape screening to minimize the
visual impact of the driveway, particularly along the southwest property line.
Motion:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Commissioner Yost / Commissioner Rosekrans
Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Hobson, Commissioners Rosekrans, Voelke and Yost
Commissioner Elder
None
Commissioner Brasher
The motion carried.
The Chair announced that anyone interested in appealing the decision of the Planning Commission could
do so within ten days and should see the staff for more information.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 10
4.
Joseph Putnam / Lisa Putnam
1101 Canada Road / 65 Mission Trail
LLAJ#2011-0002
Planner: Deborah Dory
Review and approval/denial of a proposal for a Lot Line Adjustment between 1101 Canada Road and 65
Mission Trail in accordance with WMC 152.021.
DISCUSSION
Deborah Dory, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Vice Chair Hobson asked if the owner of Lot No. 1 would consider merging both lots and eliminate
“jogs” on the map.
Ms. Dory referred the question to the applicant.
There were no further questions for staff.
Chair Thompson called for the applicant to speak.
Joe Putnam, owner, spoke. Mr. Putnam stated that he is the owner of both subject parcels, and briefly
explained that the proposed lot line adjustment will increase the lot size at 65 Mission Trail, where his
daughter and her family live. Mr. Putnam said that although not proposed, the lot line adjustment would
allow for a 15 feet deck to be constructed on the west side of the existing residence.
Vice Chair Hobson asked Mr. Putnam if he would consider unjogging the proposed lot line.
Mr. Putnam stated that he would be amiable to unjogging the proposed lot line, but said that an existing
horse corral fence would have to be moved.
Vice Chair Hobson said that unjogging the proposed lot line would result in a cleaner map.
Chair Thompson concurred with Vice Chair Hobson.
Deborah Dory, Senior Planner, stated that the existing horse corral fence could remain in the setback
because Mr. Putnam owns both parcels, but to unjog the proposed lot line would require map revision and
Planning Commission review.
Commissioner Rosekrans concurred that the lot line should be extended straight all the way.
Mr. Putnam said he would not want this proposed change (i.e., to clean up the property lines), to
necessitate a return for public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Chair Thompson said that there are no Commissioner objections.
Vice Chair Hobson asked staff if this could be placed on the Planning Commission Consent Calendar.
Jackie Young, Director of Planning and Building, stated that this proposed change does not meet the
noticing requirements and would therefore require public review at a future Planning Commission
meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 11
Commissioner Elder stated that the Town has a prohibition against unnecessary jogs in lot lines, but said
that the proposed lot line jog is not objectionable. Commissioner Elder stated that she could approve the
proposal as presented.
Chair Thompson asked if there were further questions for the applicant.
There were none.
Chair Thompson called for public comment.
There was no public comment.
Chair Thompson called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Elder / Vice Chair Hobson
The public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Voelke expressed her support for the proposed project as presented. Commissioner Voelke
stated that staff might have suggested to the applicant that the proposed lot line be aligned/straightened.
Ms. Dory stated that staff did suggest this to the applicant.
Chair Thompson stated that she can make the required finding, and approve the proposed project as
presented.
Chair-elect Yost stated that he can make required findings, and approve the proposed project as presented
without further alignment of property lines.
Chair Thompson called for a motion.
ACTION
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-007, and approved LLAJ2011-0002, a Lot Line
Adjustment between 65 Mission Trail and 1101 Canada Road.
Motion:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Commissioner Rosekrans / Chair Thompson
Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Hobson, Commissioners Elder, Rosekrans, Voelke and Yost
None
None
Commissioner Brasher
The motion carried.
The Chair announced that anyone interested in appealing the decision of the Planning Commission could
do so within ten days and should see the staff for more information.
REPORTS:
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 12
Report from Planning Commissioners and Staff on Other Meetings
a. Staff Communications
None
b. Planning Commissioners Communications
Commissioner Elder stated that she attended the Town Council meeting of February 8, 2011, and under
discussion was the formation of the a body that would review the General Plan Update, e.g., a
subcommittee comprised of several Town Council members.
Chair-elect Yost asked what was decided.
Commissioner Elder said that the Town Council agreed on the formation of a subcommittee, with the full
Town Council weighing in if policy issues are identified.
Jackie Young, Director of Planning and Building, stated that staff has held 13 study sessions to date with
the Town Council. The General Plan Update Subcommittee, charged with reviewing the edits from the
Town Council study sessions, consists of Mayor Ron Romines, Councilmember Peter Mason, and
Councilmember Anne Kasten. Ms. Young stated that staff provides the Subcommittee members with draft
Elements in batches for review and editing. Ms. Young stated that the final edits will then be supplied to
the full Town Council for review. Ms. Young stated that staff has reviewed one quarter of the document
thus far, and that additional Subcommittee meetings will be scheduled.
Chair Thompson stated that on March 22, 2011, the Town Council will review the new Town Manager
selection criteria.
Vice Chair Hobson stated that she is scheduled to attend that meeting.
Commissioner Voelke stated that she attended the Town Council meeting of January 25, 2011, and one
topic under discussion was waterline backflow preventers. Commissioner Voelke briefly related the
discussions that took place and said that a lot of input was received and concerns were raised.
Commissioner Voelke related that waterline backflow preventers could be designed to be less obtrusive.
Commissioner Voelke stated that another topic under discussion was the Cargill Saltworks project, and
said that a Redwood City resident spoke passionately about what approval of the project would bring (i.e.,
parks, open space). Commissioner Voelke said that the Town Council did a good job in responding to that
speaker.
Commissioner Elder asked staff if there is anything more going forward to the Town Council regarding
waterline backflow preventers.
Sage Schaan, Senior Planner, stated that staff plans to return to the Town Council in April 2011, and will
address the concerns raised by the Town Council. Mr. Schaan said that staff will look at a tiered setback
requirement based on the size of the preventer and an administrative exception process, but said that there
is no magic way to screen the devices.
Chair Thompson spoke to driveway exceptions and said that the WMC is extremely definitive in Section
151.44 A, in stating only one driveway is allowed, but is extremely tolerant (“mushy”) in the subsection
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 13
listing the two required findings. Chair Thompson said that the Commission is setting a precedent, and
suggested that the Code be reviewed/ changed, or many more requests for a second driveway will come
forward.
Commissioner Voelke said that there should be a necessity of use in granting an exception for a second
driveway. Commissioner Voelke said that this is troubling.
Commissioner Rosekrans questioned the idea that rural means one driveway. Commissioner Rosekrans
said that this definition is phony, and that there are a lot of gates and driveways in the country and on
farms.
Chair Thompson suggested that “rural” could be replaced by “scenic”.
Chair-elect Yost said that “rural” should mean “less developed”.
Chair Thompson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:47 P.M.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Page 14
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project and recommend approval of
the proj ect by adopting Resolution #2011-008 (Attachment A).
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 0.32 acre property located in the Community Commerci al di strict in
Woodside. The front of the building is one story and faces Woodside Road with a parking area
in front ofthe structure. The lower portion of the structure is crawlspace.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categoricall y exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) by Section 15302, which allows for reconstruction of existing cOlmnercial
structures. Minor modifications to an existing commercial structure are proposed.
DISCUSSION
After a public hearing, the Platming COImnission may authorize a conditional use in any zoning
district in which such use is pennitted by the provisions of this chapter provided the facts
presented at the publi c heating allow the Planning Commission to make all of the foll owing
fi ndings:
(1)
That the proposed use at such location is necessQl)' or desirable to
provide a facility or service which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood
or community or which needs to be located where proposed due to the operating requirements of
a public utility or service;
The WMC says that the CC District is "a commercial classification designating uses which have
the probability of primarily serving the frequent recuning day-to-day needs of the local
cOlmnunity" (WMC 153.021.E). Staff find s that a restaurant and cafe with coffee, beer, and wine
sales and cooking classes would meet the needs of the conmmruty.
(2)
That the proposed use at the particular location will be consistent with the
intent, pwpose, and objectives of this chapter and the General Plan;
The proposal is consistent with the "Policies for Commercial Land Uses" in the General Plan,
specifically:
P36 Secure bicycle parking facilities shall be provided by commercial entelprises when
appropriate.
P40 In tensity of use of a site shall be limited to that which is compatible with adjoining uses and
in keeping with the rural village character of Woodside; the use should not generate traffic in
excess of the capacity of the circulation system.
P42 Convenience, retail and personal services uses meeting prinwrizy the needs of the lown
residents shall be emphasized over office and administrative uses. Boarding houses, inns, bed
and brea~fastfacilities, hotels and motels are not allowed.
PC Meeting
June 1, 2011
2989 Woodside Road
Page 2
The proposal would convert an office space, which is not preferred, to a restaurant and coffee
shop.
Additionally, the Town has adopted a Town Center Local Area Plan (included as Attachment
8.6), which provides policies for this property. The majority of the policies are related to the
construction or modifications of structures rather than the use of the structure. The ASRB has
reviewed the proposal as it relates to the Town Center Local Area Plan, and has asked for
modifications to the proposed sign and fayade improvements, and for continued review of the
new changes (reference Condition of Approval No.6) .
(3)
That the proposed use in such location will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare ofpersons residing or working in the vicinity of such use or be
injurious to p roperty or improvements in the vicinity;
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed cafe. The building department and fire
department have reviewed the proposal (reference Attachments B.4 & 8.5) and have made
reconmlendations for the safe use of the propetty as a restaurant.
(4)
That the site for the proposed lise is adequate in size, shape, and
topography to accommodate the proposed use;
The property is adequate in size, shape, and topography for the proposed use. The existing
building is 1,278 square feet. No additional square footage is proposed with this project. The
project previously included a desire for outdoor seating, but the project has been modified so that
it does not include outdoor seating. Since additional analysis of the parking configuration would
have to occur if outdoor seating were included, staff recotmnends Condition of Approval No. 3,
that no outdoor seating is allowed unless the Conditional Use Pennit is amended.
Parking
The parking lot meets the parking requirements ofWMC 153.11 7, which require 1 parking space
per each 2.5 seats, stools, or standing spaces for establishments for the sale or consumption of
alcoholic beverages, food or refreslunents. A total of 25 seats are proposed in the restaurant/cafe,
thus requiring 10 parking spaces. The existi ng parking lot has 11 parking spaces, including 1
accessible space (required by the Americans with Disabilities Act). The lower parking spaces
(south of the building) are not available for use for the proposed cafe. The existing upper
parking lot has three compact parking spaces where only 2 compact parking spaces are allowed
(not more than 25 percent of the required parking may be compact spaces per WMC 153.119).
Therefore, the applicant has proposed to modifY existing compact parking space No . 1 into an
area for bicycle parking, which is also required by WMC 153.1 19.G. A total of six metal bicycle
racks are proposed to be installed in front of the building (reference photograph of proposed bike
racks, included as Attachment F).
The WMC 153.11 9.G requirements also require a horse hitching rack. There is a horse trail
below the propetty, and a horse hitch could be located adjacent to the trail in this location (as
shown on the site plan). If the applicant desires to install a horse hitch in thi s location, staff
recommends that the appli cant work with the Woodside Trails Committee on its proposed
location (Condition of Approval No.2).
PC Meeting
June 1, 2011
2989 Woodside Road
Page 3
As 503 square feet of the parking lot is planting area, the parking lot complies with the
requirements for 10 percent of the parking area to be planter area.
The Woodside Engineering Department recOlmnends re-striping the parking spaces so that the
parking spaces are clearly marked (reference Condition of Approval No.4).
(5)
That the site /or the proposed use can be served by roads 0/ adequate
width and design to accommodate the quantity and type 0/ traffic generated by such use; and
The property is located adjacent to Woodside Road, which has adequate width and capacity for
the proposal.
(6)
can be provided.
That adequate utilities and other services required /or such use exist or
The property is cUlTently, and will continue to be served by adequate utilities.
In conclusion, staff supports the proposal.
PC Meeting
June 1,20 11
2989 Woodside Road
Page 4
Project Data
TOTAL FLOOR AREA:
No changes to floor area proposed. The existing structure is 1,278 square feet.
PLANTER AREA :
No changes proposed. The existing parking lot is 4,8 61 square feet, with a total of 503 square
feet devoted to planter area.
PARKING:
Minimum Required:
Proposed:
10 parking spaces
10 parking spaces, including I disabled accessible parking space
ATTACHMENTS
A.
Resolution 2011-008
B.
ASRB report (including the following attacJm1ents)
I.
Application
2.
Description of Coffee House Use Proposal from Mark Sweyer received March 25,
201 1
3.
Request for beer and wine sales from Mark Sweyer recei ved Apri l 4, 2011
4.
Comments from Woodside Fire Protection District, dated Apli lll , 2011
5.
Building comments from Kutzmann & Associates, dated April 11 , 201 1
6.
Town Center Plan
7.
Location Map
C.
Letter clarifYing proposed cafe use, prepared by Mark Sweyer, dated May 23, 2011
D.
Action Letter from May 2, 2011 ASRB meeting
E.
Letter from Lee Aim Gilbert, received May 3, 201 1
F.
Detail of proposed sign (color copy to PC onl y)
Photograph of bike racks (color copy to PC only)
G.
H.
Site Plans (PC only)
PC Meeting
June 1,20 11
2989 Woodside Road
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-008
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO 1 OF THE TOWN
WOODSIDE APPROVING CUSE2011-0004, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ALLOW A CAFE WITH BEER AND WINE SALES ON A PROPERTY OWNED
MILLSTONE PROPERTY LLC, LOCATED AT 2989 WOODSIDE ROAD IN A
ZONING DISTRICT.
OF
TO
BY
CC
WHEREAS the Town of Woodside initiated considerat ion of Project No. CUSE2011-0004, which
includes the conversion of a building from office space to a cafe with beer and wine sales (collectively referred to
hereinafter as the "Project");
WHEREAS the Project was detennined to be exempt from additional review pursuant to the
California Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQ A, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177); and,
WHEREAS on June 1, 2011, the Plalming Conunission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Project at which oral and written conunents and a staff recommendation for approval of the Project were
presented to the Commission. The Plalming Conuni ssion reviewed and considered the infornlation in the
administrative record;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Conul1ission hereby makes the following
findings, as further discussed, detailed and supported by the Planning Conul1ission staff report of June 1,
2011 :
1. Not ice of all hearings on the Project was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant
to CEQA, and local Town requirements; and
2.
All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the Project were given the 0PPOltunity to submit oral and
written conmlents prior to this action by the Planning COlmnission; and
3. The applicant has demonstrated that the Project is in keeping with the following statements:
4. The Project will cause no significant negative environmental impacts to the applicant's property, adjacent
properties, or to the surrounding neighborhood; and
5. That the proposed use at such location is necessary or desirable to provide a facil ity or service which will
contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or conununity or which needs to be located where
proposed due to the operating requirements of a public utility or service; and
6.
That the proposed use at the pal1icular locat ion will be consistent with the intent, purpose, and objectives of
this chapter and the General Plan and the Town Center Local Area Plan; and
7.
That the proposed use in such location will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity of such use or be injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity; and
8. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, and topography to acconunodate the proposed
use; and
9.
That the site for the proposed use can be served by roads of adequate width and design to accommodate the
quantity and type of traffic generated by such use; and
ATIACHMENT A
Page 1 of 2
10. That adequate utilities and other services required for such use exist or can be provided.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Plarming Corrunission hereby adopts Project
No. CUSE2011-0004, with the following Conditions of Approval:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TIle applicant must obtain the appropriate license for sales of beer and wine from the California Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
TIle applicant shall work with the Woodside Trails Corrunittee to install a horse hitch on the south side of
the property.
No outdoor seating is allowed, unless the Conditional Use Pennit is amended at a public hearing.
TIle applicant shall re-stripe the parking lot so that the parking areas are clearly marked.
The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Woodside Building Department and the Woodside
Fire Protection District.
The applicant shall retum to the ASRB with modifications to the proposed sign and exterior fayade
improvements prior to conunencing the business.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of June 2011 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Conunissioners:
C0l111nissioners:
Commissioners:
COll11nissioners:
APPROVED:
Chair
ATTEST:~~~~_______________
Planning Secretary
Tllis pennit is hereby accepted upon the express tenns and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect
unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The
undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved ternlS and conditions and agrees to full y confonn to and
comply with said tenns and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the Planning
Cornnlission.
Propel1y Owner or Authorized Agent
Date
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW BOARD
Meeting Date:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
May 2, 2011
Deborah Dory, Senior Planner
Jackie Young, Director of Planning & Building
Agenda Item: 1
TITLE: ASRB#2011-0014 : Review and r ecommendation of approval, conditional approval,
or denial to the Planning Commission of a proposal to construct exterior modification s to a
commercial building and a new sign for the proposed "Whiskey Hill Coffee Brewing Co."
cafe. The Planning Commission will consider a requ est for a Conditional Use Permit for the
cafe at a separately noticed meeting.
Property Information
Address:
2989 Woodside Road
APN :
073-112-130
Property Owner:
Millstone Property LLC
Zoning District:
CC (Community Commercial)
General Plan Designation:
C (Commercial)
Lot Area:
0.32 acres
EXECUTfVESUNmdARY
The appli cant proposes exterior modifications to an eXlstmg commercial structure in the
Community Commercial center in Woodside, including a new sign for the proposed cafe.
Exterior building changes include a new dark brown cloth awning and modifications to the doors
and windows. The ASRB is asked to review the application and make a recommendation to the
Planning Director on the proposed sign and exterior improvements in compliance with Woodside
Municipal Code Sections 153.079 (signs) and 153 .220 (ASRB review). The Planning
Commission will then review the proposed Conditional Use Permit, application No. CUSE 2011 0004 , to consider the use.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the ASRB review the project and recommend approval ofthe project to the
Planning Director with the following Conditions of Approval:
1.
2.
3.
The applicant must obtain the appropriate license for sales of beer and wine from the
Califomia Deparhnent of Alcoholi c Beverage Control.
The applicant shall work with the Woodside Trails Committee if a horse hitch is
proposed adjacent to the existing equestrian trail on the south side of the propeliy.
The applicant shall re-stripe the parking lot so that the parking areas are clearly marked.
ASRB Meeting
May 2, 20J J
2989 Woodside Road
Page J
ATTACHM ENT B
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 0.32 acre property located in the Community Commercial district in
Woodside. The front of the building is one story and faces Woodside Road with a large parking
area in front of the structure. The lower portion of the structure is crawlspace.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) by Section 15302, which allows for reconstruction of existing commercial
structures. Minor modifications to an existing commercial structure are proposed.
DISCUSSION
The ASRB is required to review all proposed signs in the Community Commercial (CC) district
and "to ensure that the legibility, design and location of signs and their materials and colors are
consistent with the character and scale of th e buildings to which they are attached or which are
located on the same site and to ensure that the signs are visually harmonious with surrounding
development, " (WMC 153.220). The applicant proposes a new sign, to be mounted flat against
the wall of the existing structure located in the Community Commercial zoning district. The new
sign would be in the same location as the previous sign (for Cashin Company Realtors), and the
same dimensions, which meet the Zoning Ordinance sign requirements. The dimensions of the
sign are 5 feet, 6 inches by 5 feet, 6 inches, a total of 30.25 square feet, where the maximum sign
size would be 32 square feet. The sign is proposed to be painted wood as shown on Attachment
7. The sign includes the name of the business "Whiskey Hill Coffee Brewing Co." and images of
a beer barrel, beer glass, coffee grinder, coffee cup and saucer, framed by barley husks. The
proposed sign colors are in tones of black, brown, and beige, and red. Staff finds the proposed
sign to be legible, consistent with the scale of the building, and visually harmonious with the
surrounding development.
The proposed exterior improvements include installing a new dark brown cloth awning on the
front (north) and right side (west) elevations, over the existing red clay tile roofing. (The existing
roof is flat, with a 5 foot tall tile mansard roof.) The existing 6 panels of windows, including a
two panel glass front door, would be replaced with a glass 3 panel folding section door, and a
single disabled accessible swinging door. The net result would be a reduction from 6 glass
panels to 4 glass panels. The area where the 2 glass panels would be removed would be infilled
with stucco to match the existing exterior finish. The stucco on the entire building would repainted; changing from off-white to a tan/light brown color. The metal door and window trim
wo uld be off-white.
The Town Center Plan gi ves direction for buildings and structures as follow s: "A rchitectural
character should be informal and unpretentious. Although no pre-programmed sryles are
desired or intended, some historic reference either in contempOl'Q/Y or traditional styles is
desirable, " and also, "Materials wilized in the construction of buildings, roadways, walks and
other structures should be conducive 10 maintaining the rural character of Woodside. Exclusive
or excessive use of glass and glass block, porcelain -enamel, metal, chrome and plastics should
be avoided." The proposal includes a wood painted sign, and a reduction of glass on the store
front. The sign and name of the business reference historical events in town (Whiskey Hill).
Staff finds the proposed exterior changes to be in keeping with the General Plan and the Town
Center Plan (reference Attachment 6).
ASRB Meeting
May 2. 20J J
2989 Woodside Road
Page 2
PARKING
The parking lot meets the parking requirements of WMe 153.11 7, which require I parking space
per each 2.5 seats, stools, or standing spaces for establishments for the sale or consumption of
alcoholic beverages, food or refreshments. A total of 25 seats are proposed in the restaurant/cafe,
thus requiring 10 parking spaces. The existing parking lot has 10 parking spaces, including I
disabled accessible space. The Woodside Engineering Department recommends re-striping the
parking spaces so that the parking spaces are clearly marked (reference Condition of Approval
No.3).
The applicant proposes to add bicycle parking to the lot, which is required in WMe 153.119.G.
A total of nine metal bicycle racks are proposed to be installed in front of the building (reference
photograph included as Attachment 8).
The WMe 153.119.G requirements also ask for a horse hitching rack. There is a horse trail
below the property, and a horse hitch could be located adjacent to the trail in this location. If the
applicant desires to install a horse hitch in this location, staff recommends that the applicant
work with the Woodside Trails Committee on its proposed location (Condition of Approval No.
2).
As 503 square feet of the parking lot is planting area, the parking lot complies with the
requirements for 10 percent of the parking area to be planter area.
ASRB Meeting
May 2. 2011
2989 'Woodside Road
Page 3
Project Information
TOTAL FLOOR AREA:
No changes to floor area proposed. The existing structure is 1,178 square feet.
PLANTE R AREA :
No changes proposed. The existing parking lot is 4,861 square feet , with a total of 503 square
feet devoted to planter area.
PARKING:
Minimum Required:
Proposed:
10 parking spaces
10 parking spaces, including I disabled accessible parking space
ATTACHMENTS
I.
Application
2.
Description of Coffee House Use Proposal from Mark Sweyer received March 25 , 2011
3.
Request for beer and wine sales from Mark Sweyer received April 4, 2011
4.
Comments from Woodside Fire Protection District, dated April II , 2011
5.
Building comments from Kutzmann & Associates, dated April 11,2011
6. Town Center Plan
7.
Location Map
8.
Detail of proposed sign (color copy to ASRB only)
9.
Photograph of bike racks (color copy to ASRB only)
10. Aerial photograph (ASRB only)
11. Site Plans (ASRB only)
ASRB Meeting
May 2.2011
2989 Woodside Road
Page 4
I \.l
n
.'
n
\.../j
\... 1 ,- /L/ _ ~1:
.JJ_
PLANNING APP Ll CATJOJ
ARCl-lITECTUFu,L 8: SITE REVIEv,.' BOARD ; PLA I'<'N I"iG COMMISSIOr-:
cS 1 f?'j
PR OJECT AD DRESS:
/)0025:2 /
ctcldl2
API'i :_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
REQUEST FOR PUB LI C H EARI NG : (check all th at apply)
1i ASRB fiSI"-12;>1~l{ - CO 'tr
o
o
o
o
o
o Exception to site development regulations
o Exception to setbacks
o Exception to maximum residence size
~ Conditional Use Permit (new or amendment) CU.sE1Jd l
Site Desi!!n (ASRB + PC)
Variance
Lot Merger
Lot Line Adjustment
Subdivision/Land Division
o
o
O0c4
Amendment to zoning ordinance
Other
DESCRIPTIO N OF PRO JECT:
Cor//d( !2vJ9c;/f.7
APPLI CANT: (if oth er than ow ner)
OWNER :
NamelY).'U ~ >ad/-!
Address
! Q9 (
.2/2",) C
Phone
Fax
?&?i.p >j (( L
MJ; ff'57/1,'AL
f& tr:'5' cd
/
;(C>/)D )/:; () I
9' '--IV? [)
,--
6/])- 592 ,- S '-/2 "
Sro- 592-- S i 9:1
************************************************************************************
AFFIDAVIT
I declare that I am the owner (or authorized agent') of the property in volved in this application, and that the
foregoing is true and correct and complete in accordance with the requirements listed in Section l53.226 of
the Woodside Zoning Ordinance.
In order for this application to be complete, the story po les are req ui red to be erected at least 14 days prior
to the meetin g da te. If the story poles are not erected by that time, the application will be deemed
incomplete, in which case the applicmion will be considered by the Board at a later date.
Government Code Section 65105: Entl1' on land by planning agency personnel - In the performance of
their functions , planning agency pe:-sonnel may enter upon any land and make examinations and surveys,
provided that the entries, examinations, and surveys do not interfere \vith the use of the land by those
persons Inwfully
od to the ossession thereof.
Owner Signall ·e.
:::~~~'1'f-VI---
______ Dale Z- r;
rh~
r z.c \\
* Authoriz~d agent Blust provide wrinen verification from the property owner.
**~/'i~l~ *""""""""" **"" """"" ""* **~~~;;~~~"~J~~ ~~~;"""" """" """""""
FEE?
~1V
DEPOSIT -
RECEIPT;;
RECEIVED BY
** """""""""" **""" *
(jn
Date
ATIACHMENT 1
~ lSi i!
TO :
Town of Woodside
FROM :
Mark Sweyer, General Partner, Towll Center P ~CEIVED
DATE:
February 27, 2011
~lAR
SUBJECT: COFFEE HOUSE USE PROPOSAL
2989 WOODSIDE ROAD
25 Z011
WOODSIDE TOWN HALL
We would like to take this opportunity to share our ideas for the proposed use of the
above property. Our plans will incorporate three uses: two will p rovide a much
needed, and requested, service and the third introduces a new and exciting activity
to our community.
Use # 1- Coffe e House
This new-style coffee house will offer a variety of rich coffees served "pour over"
style (ind ividually brewed per cup), using ou r own -roasted coffees . Our coffee
roasting machine will roast fresh coffee throughout the day, fillin g the shop with the
won derful aro ma of fr es h coffee. Custo me rs m ay also purchase our roasted co ffee
beans to take home. We wi ll offer a variety of our baked goods (from our Woodside
Bake ry). We anticipate the operating hours to be 7 days a week, from 6am to llpm.
Use #2 - Banquet Venue for WBC
We have just celebrated our 5 th An niversary at the Woodside Bakery & Cafe.
Throughout these years we have had numer ous requests for a "private" space to
accommodate events, such as : birthdays, showers, rehearsal dinners, anniversaries,
etc. We have only had lim ited abi li ty to accommodate such requests, as ., weather
permitting, our patio has been our only so u rce of space. By taking on the new space,
we would create the perfect venue with the added plus of dedicated parking.
Us e #3 - Cooking Classes
At long last we have found the perfect spot to be able to share our love of cooking
and baking with our community. Our Chefs, as well as other loca l and celebrity
Chefs will partake in this program, teaching and sharing their wo nderful recipes.
We will continue with our annual children 's Gingerbread House Decorating Parties
and add other classes for the Holidays and summer months.
We hope our plans generate the same enthusiasm we feel, knowing how positive the
impact to our community will be through the introduction of these new and exciting
services that continues to keep our Town unique .
ATIAC HMEN T 2
~
TOWN CENTER PARTNERS LP.
dba WOODSIDE BAKERY &. CArt
3052 Wood side Road
Woods id e, CA 94062
Cafe: 650·851·0812
Bakery: 851· 7247
TO:
Town of Woods id e, Pl a nning Departm ent
FROM:
Ma I' k B. Sweye r, Genera l Pa rtner, Tow n Center Partners L.P.
DATE :
April 4, 2011
SU BJECT:
GENERAL USE PERIYIlT
W his key Hill C offee Brewing Co mpany
Per the original submission of the General Use Permit Application for Whiskey Hill
Coffee Brewing Company, please be advised that we neglected to include "Beer and
Wine Sales".
Please include this additional item to our original request.
Thank you.
r
General Partner
RECEiiJEO
TOW!; of Woods;'),..
APR04Z011
l3PNo. ___ _
AlTACHM ENT 3
WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Prevention Division
4091 Jejjerson Ave, Redwood City CA 94062 - www.woodsidefire.org - Fire Marshal Denise Enea 650-851-6206
CONDITIONS MUST MEET WFPD SPECIFICATIONS .
for more
Jurisdiction: WDS
PROJECT LOCA TION:2989 Woodside Rd
Permit#:
ASRB
Manager:
Millstone Property LLC
: Remodel Building
Date:
PROJECT
Fees Paid:
Fee
Invoiced
$60.00
411 IIII
PLAN CHECK COMMENTS/CONDITIONS:
I.
2.
3.
4.
Address clearly posted and visible from street w/minirnum of 4" numbers on contrasting background.
Approved spark arrestor on all chimney and tlues if needed for roasting unit.
Fire spinkler system to be continued in all areas, confirm correct temps if needed for roasting room.
Exit installed per code.
5. Occupation signs installed per code.
"'RESUBMIT final plans for WFPD approval prior to construction.'"
Date: 4/11111
Reviewed by:M. Bird
with Conditions
Sprinkler Plans Approved: ----------
Date:
IA:DPlrm'ed without conditions
"i .'--{~: .... ~~.- :">- }:'~-~i:' ':_~'£;- __':.i.~ '"1t. :~J
Fees Paid: [gi$350 Osee Fee Comments
As Builts Submitted: ----------Fee Comments:
Date:
As Buiits Approved Date:
[giResubmit
"', -c;', ~ r
::;::'
..
'~~, .~:~-; ;tf.-r~:1;": ~~::"Ir-7:_-t~=f,·i~~ ~~::'..:=:;~-t~:-'l-,~::..:: ::;:."~ ~~:~~';,[~~ti:::f::=:;:,:"::2
,
Rough/Hydro Sprinkler Inspection By: --------Sprinkler Inspection Comments:
.
Final Bldg and/or Sprinkler Insp By: -------Comments:
Date:
..
-
-
"
Date:
ATIACHMENT 4
RECEIVED
April 1I, 201 1
!l,PR i ? Z011
Town of Woodside
P.O. Box 620005
WOODSIDE
2955 Woodside Road
Woodside. CA 94062-2443
Email: [email protected]'/
WDSll-033
TOliVN HALL
Attention: Deborah Dory. Senior Planner
Re:
Plan Review:
City Number:
Address:
PROPOSED WHISKEY HILL
ROASTING CO. COFFEE HOUSE
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
2989 WOODSIDE ROAD
Dear Ms. Dory:
We have received the following documents:
l.
Plans: ( I) Set of Architectural Sheets dated March 24, 2011 and prepared by Dave Tanner,
Inc.
2.
List of Use Proposals: (1) Letter dated February 27, 2011 and prepared by Mark Sweyer,
General Partner, Town Center partners L.P.
These documents were reviewed for their conformance to the 2010 California Building Code (2009
UMC, 2008 NEC) including the State Energy Conservation Standards and Disabled
Access Regulations.
mc, UPC,
Based on the review of the preliminary plans provided to our office, there does not appear to be any
specific aspects of the proposed project that would make the project infeasible subj ect to the
following condition:
1.
That the proposed use and occupant load, will be such that the existing "B" occupancy
classification will be maintained. If the proposed use was to change such that an "A"
occupancy is created, the building will be required to be upgraded to comply with all current
requirements applicable to the new occupancy classification, including seismic design.
Sincerely,
Patricia Kutzmann,
Ci vi I Engineer
copy: Curtis Clark, Building Official /
ATIACHMENT 5
~0'
KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3935 5 Californi a St. , Suite 200 Fremont , CA 9453 8 Cl TEL: (51 0) 796- 3003 Cl FAX : (51 0) 796- 9422
TOWN CENTER PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa;)e
INTRODUCTION
203
POLICIES
General and Aesthetic Qualities
Land Use
Circulation
203
203
206
206
STANDARDS AND DESIGN POLICIES
Land Use and Development
Circu lation
208
208
208
IMPLEMENTATION
208
ATIACHME NT 6
TOWN CENTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION
This sub-area plan, Part III of the General Plan, is intended to amplify and augment and
further the policies and proposals set forth in Parts I and II. Where additional detail is
provided in this Town Center Plan, it is intended to be governing; however, it is not
intended to supersede the basic goals and poliCies included in Parts I and II .
This plan is to be used as a guide to expansion and replacement of existing structures and
facilities and the establishment of new structures and facilities needed to provide
reasonable and accustomed services to local residents. It provides a framework for
gradual changes in the area which will take place over a period of time by a combination
of private endeavors and public actions. It also provides, in conjunction with Parts I and
II of this General Plan, a basis for necessary implementing regulations and programs.
The extent of the Town Center Commercial Area is described in general terms in the Land
Use Element and indicated more exactly in the following diagram. Commercial activities
should in the main be limited to Area A. Area B is identified as suitable for civic,
cultural and institutional uses of lower intensity than in Area A.
The Plan is intended to guide, unify and enhance, both functionally and aesthetically, the
development and use of separately owned private properties in coordination with public
spaces and facilities. It is desired that the Town Center maintain the existing physical
scale and visual informality and that all commercial activities be physically quiet, and
have low visual impact.
This Plan is not intended to materially impair the continuance of existing uses or
structures or to require modifications other than as provided herein. Regulations and
programs adopted to implement this Plan should provide a reasonable time to allow
existing uses to be brought into conformity with the policies and proposals of this Plan.
Constraints on development of individual parcels should be kept 10 Ihe minimum
necessary 10 achieve basic goals and poliCies of Ihe Town and assure that roads, paths and
trails in the Center will form a safe interconnected system.
POLICIES
GENERAL AND AESTHETIC QUALmES
Buildings and Structures
1.
Architectural character should be informal and unpretentious. Although no preprogrammed styles are desired or intended, some historic reference either in
contemporary or traditional styles is desirable.
203
REA.
-------;;MOlOUmNrTTAAIINN HOME ROAD
I ..
j
· .. :::r:::;
:~? ,,,'
:::
~.//.!i~::/.'" .
.. //Ji
~::
-....
"..~~\.
'
cree~~
~.; . . . ,.
l
/"~"~
A
,?<---: Limits of Town
if
(follows percel
"
..
".
....
':::
\\
r
V-~
\%
'\~~;
Center
/ices,
rOad iVw 's, Ond C/L
of Co nedo Lene)
2.
Design of structures and building elements should be compatible with topcgraphic
features, native plant material and surrounding physical environs.
3.
Scale of structures and building elements should be moderately small and in
keeping with existing improvements.
4.
Materials utilized in the construction of buildings, roadways, walks and other
structures should be conducive to maintaining the rural character of Woodside.
Exclusive or excessive use of glass and glass block, pcrcelain·enamel, metal,
chrome and plastics should be avoided.
5.
Structures on adjoining properties should be visually and functionally related to
foster overall community identity, while allowing independent settings and design
expression.
Landscapino and SUe Deyelopment
1.
Existing vegetation along Dry Creek should be carefully protected and additional
planting provided where necessary to form a substantial buffer between
commercial and residential properties.
2.
Landscaping of individual sites should contribute to the visual unity of the Center.
Trees and other large plant materials should be selected and placed to become a part
of an overall design scheme. This does not mean that the individuality of separate
enterprises and institutions should be discouraged.
3.
Planting should be used to establish a pleasant setting for structures, screening of
service and parking areas, and to soften the appearance of building elements and
paved areas.
4.
The character of planting and landscape materials should be suited to the building
style, topographic land form, soil conditions and expcsure, and compatible with
existing native materials.
5.
The areas of native vegetation along Dry Creek together with landscaped open spaces
on individual sites and along public ways should form an "open space web" linking
the several parts of the Center.
1.
Signs should be deSigned to be compatible with the building character and environs.
2.
All signs should be as simple as pcssible in lettering and logo design. Size and
placement should be controlled through appropriate regulations.
205
Lighting
1.
Night lighting should be provided as necessary for safety with particular attention
to pedestrial walks and parking areas.
2.
All exterior lighting sources should be shielded or screened from view from
roadways and adjoining properties, and intensity limited to that necessary for
safety and identification.
LAND USE
1.
Types of uses should be limited to those identified in the Land Use Element.
2.
Policies, standards and criteria set forth in the Land Use Element should be
observed.
3.
Intensities of use should be compatible with adjoining residential uses. Critical
factors are: ratios of built to unbuilt space ; hours of operation; generation of noise,
odors, smoke, or fumes; energy consumption ; character and intenSity of lighting ;
traffic generation and parking requirements ; extent of land form modification;
mitigating measures employed including landscaping and adjustment of structure
design to recognize conditions on-site and on adjoining properties.
4.
Late nighttime activities should be discouraged and hours of operation regulated to
assu re against disturbance to adjoining residential properties with particular
attention given to uses with high traffic impact.
5.
Special procedures should be established for review of proposed new developments
and changes in use to assure consistency with the objectives, principles, standards
and criteria of this General Plan. Specific consideration should be given to:
intensity of use; visual qualities; the probability that the use will serve primarily
the residents of Woodside; scheduling of site development and other construction ;
conformance with any specific plans for circulation and landscaping.
CIRCULATIQN
The poliCie s set forth below under separate headings are intend ed to furth er the
following objectives :
1.
To provide safe and convenient circul ation for all persons within th e Town Center
by clearly defined and se parated ways and routes for motor ve hicles, pedestrians,
equestrians, and bicyclists.
2.
To enco urage and provide a pl easant circulation system through and with in the
Town Center without the use of vehicles, with space for additional tree planting
whe rever feasible on public andlor private prope rty.
206
3.
To reduce or eliminate the various existing hazards and proble m areas, i.e.:
a.
Egress from parking areas and service stations onto Woodside Road.
b.
Large expanse of asphalt on Woodside Road from Whiskey Hill Road to Canada
Reed.
c.
Multiplicity of parking and turning movements along the Woodside Road
corridor.
4.
To restrict or prohibit facilities within or near Town limits which would generate
a large increase in traffic through Town Center.
5.
To divert as much through traffic as possible from routes in the Town Center to
thoroughfares or regional trails in other locations.
Motor Vehicle
1.
Separate parking movements from the through traffic on Woodside Road.
2.
Umi! turning movements along Woodside Road.
3.
Require installation of additional parking spaces away from Woodside Road where
needed.
4.
Umit and define ingress and egress areas along Woodside Road.
Pedestrian
1.
Provide safe, well defined separate paths along both sides of Woodside Road within
Town Center limits - separated from vehicular traffic wherever feasible.
2.
Provide safety paths for school children and secondary paths for convenient acces s
to shops at rear of commercial enterprises as well as to equestrian trails, minor
roads and other facilities.
3.
Pedestrian crosswalks should be provided at safe convenient locations on roads and
clearly marked.
Equ es trian
1.
Provide clearly marked, safe trails through the Town Center.
2.
Eliminate hazards on existing trails.
3.
Define any regional trails within Town Cente r and install suitable markers.
207
4.
Provide places to tie up horses at commercial and institutional establishments.
Bicvcle
1.
Provide clear definition of regional and all other desired bike lanes on roads within
Town Center.
2.
Provide well defined safe bike paths for school children and others.
3.
Provide for bicycle parking at commercial and institutional establishments.
STANDARDS AND DESIGN POLICIES
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The varying physical characteristics of lands within the Center should be recognized.
Specific standards should be included in Town regulations covering: maximum allowable
building coverage and building height; required landscaped and other open space areas;
scale of buildings; noise limits; lighting; and parking requirements and limits related to
type of use.
CIRCULATION
1.
Pedestrian paths should be of sufficient width for walkers to pass.
2.
Pedestrian paths should be surfaced and separated by a curb or other device from
parking areas and driveways.
3.
Trails and paths should be separated and protected from vehicular ways as much as
possible.
4.
Trails and paths should be planned and constructed to minimize the need for mixed
equestrian. pedestrian and bicyclist use of individual paths.
5.
Bike racks and hitching rails should be conveniently located.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Tow'l of Woodside will:
1.
Review Town regulations and give consideration to changes needed to insure
consistency with this Part and provide specific procedures and requirements for
implementation.
208
2.
Continue to review proposals for development and change within the Town Cente r
Area to assure that the objectives, principles, standards, and criteria of this Part
and other applicable General Plan policies are adhered to.
3.
Support programs to improve the visual quality of the Town Center.
4.
Continue to work with other governmental agencies and property owners to reduce
hazards caused by confiicting traffic movements.
5.
Look favorably upon changes in parcel configuration which would reduce the
problems of access and circulation within the Town Center.
6.
Formulate precise plans in cooperation with property owners to coordinate all
improvements needed along public ways so that property owners will know what
will be required in terms of public ways, plantings, drainage, and other
improvements.
209
page
u oogl e Maps
I 01 I
Get Google Map s on your phon e
p
Texttheword"GMAPS" to 46 6 4 53
~
·0
.i'
,."
®
®
".-,
. ~~
RfJ!.)p.n~.
har.1w;ifo;
K T~ ~
<:.
'"
8-
\t",""-'~!~i:
FirPo
S~1k'>n i
Pr;·I!.~C!"l!'l DI~lI"!j
11
~
I
I
I
I
I
%
c:'i.
~
I
_____________·_~~~~. ________________________~____________________~©Q~O~l~l~G~O~Og~1~e_-~M~a~p~d=a=ta~©Q~O~l_'~G=O=o~
gl=e_.
A. Cashin Co
2989 Woodside Road , Woodside , CA
(650) 529-1 000
1 review
ATIACHMENT 7
http :/' maps.googJe.com maps?ie= UTF8&q=2989-woodside-road.-woodsid e.-ca8o fb= I 8o ..
4~52011
TOWN CENTER PARTNERS L.P.
3052 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
650-851-7247
May 23, 2011
Ms. Deborah Dory, AICP
Senior Planner
Town of Woodside
2955 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
RE: CUSE#201I-0004
The Woodside Coffee Brewing Company
2989 Woodside Road
Dear Deborah:
In response to your request, we offer the following infonnation to support the Planning Commission'5
review and approva l of the use pennit for our proposed cafe at 2989 Woods ide Road, The Woodside
Coffee Brewing Company (Cafe):
Hours of Operation and Type of Service for Cafe:
o
Open 7 days per week from 6:00am to II :OOpm.
o
Tbe menu will featu re light food faire , holistic and casual, offered in single portions to be
enjoyed "on site" or " to go".
o
Pasny from our Woodside Bakery (Bakery), including freshly baked breads from its
ovens, and other simple items sucb as fresh fruit, salads, and sandwiches. Bakery breads
will also be offered for purchasc by the loaf at our new Cafe. All items on tbe Cafe menu
will be offered througbout tbe day.
o
Cafe beverage selections shall inc lude natural waters and juices, brewed- by-the-cup
coffee featuring pour-over style service; beer and wine will also be offered to be enjoyed
on site throughout the day.
o
The Cafe's will feature an in-house coffee roaster, whi ch will provide da il y roasted
coffee beans to both the Cafe and Bakery, as well as for sa le to the public.
o
A ll Cafe dining wi ll be indoors at easily mo ved tab les to allow for ma xi mum flex ibility.
Other Proposed Cafe Features and Activi ti es:
Private Dining Room:
o
Over the years, numerous Town residents ha ve asked us at the Bakery about resen'i.ng
space for private events. Unfortunately, due to limited space and layout, we cannot
accommodate th ese requ ests. However, the Cafe, being an extension of the Bakery, will
ATIACHMENTC
provide such space. 'Vle will make the entire Cafe, up to the maximum seating capacity
of25 , available on a reservation-onl y basis to accommodate such needs.
Cooking Classes:
o
•
The Cafe will feature cooking classes taught by our local chefs and other professionals.
\Ve anticipate offerin g these classes at the Cafe 2 to 3 times per month with a maximum
of25 participants.
Children's Activities:
o
The Cafe will also serve as the venue for the continuation of our ann ual children's
Gingerbread House Decorating Parties, and other Holiday and seasonal activities.
Bicycle Acconunodations:
o
•
To accommodate many anticipated bicycling patrons, bicycle racks will be placed in a
designated compact parking stall. It is understood this will limit the overall parking
count to 10 spaces, therefore limiting the overall maximum seating capacity to 25
patrons.
Equestrian Accommodations
o
An equestrian hitching post is proposed along the southerly property line next to or near
the existing horse trail. We shall work with the Town and the Trails Committee to
faci litate its installation and access.
Woodside is a very unique community and we are all so fortu nate to be given the opportuni ty to live and
conduct our businesses in th is remarkable comer of the Bay Area.
Due to the limited space in our current Bakery location and its orientation towards full table service
dining, our new proposed Cafe will provide us the opportunity to better serve the community: we'll target
lighter, more casual faire; we' ll occupy a more flexible interior setting; and we'll offer some unique,
niche capabilities.
We look forwa rd to presenting this proposal to the Planning COTrunission and the res idents of the TaWil
on the first of June.
Sincerely,
Mark B. Sweyer
General Partner
Town Center Partners L.P.
May 3,2011
Mark Sweyer
3052 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
The Town of
Woodside
Re: ASRB#2011-0014 and CUSE#2011-0004 - 2989 Woodside Road
Dear Mr. Sweyer,
The following summarizes the May 2, 2011, recommendations of t he Architectural
and Site Review Board (ASRB), fo llowed by the Planning Director's decision to
approve those recommend ations on May 3,2011.
Project Description:
Review and recommendation of approval, co nditional approval, or denial to the
Planning Commission of a proposal to construct exterior modifications to a commercial
building and a new sign for the proposed "Whiskey Hill Coffee Brewing Co." cafe. The
Planning Commission will consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the cafe
at a separately noticed meeting.
P.O. Box 620005
2955 Woodside Road
Action:
Woodside, CA 94062
The ASRB recommended a cont inuat ion of the proposed project to a date uncertain,
and provided the applicant with direction t o:
1. Simplify the proposed sign.
2. Reconsider t he design of th e building
fa~ade
(i.e., exte rior color palette and
awning design) .
. 3. . Modify the design of the proposed wind ows and doors to be less
commercial in appearance (e.g., greater number of panes on window/ door
glazing.
4. Install vines in pocket planters against the western exterior wa ll.
The ASRB recommended that the applicant work with staff on the style/type of
bicycle rack proposed to be installed.
Pursuant to WMC 153.337, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision may be
filed with the Plann ing Director within 10 calendar days, which is no later than 5
p.m. on May 13, 2011.
650-851-6790
Fax: 650-851-2195
[email protected]
ATIACHMENTD
Pursuant to WMC 153.230, any approval of the Planning Director shall lapse and
become nul l and void two years following the date on which the approval became
effective, unless, prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit is issued and
construction is commenced. Site plan or design approva l may be renewed for an
additional period of one year provided that, prior to the expiration of one year after
the date the original approval became effective, an application for the renewa l of
the approval is filed with the Planning Director. The Planning Director may grant an
exte nsion for a period not to exceed one year where no change in conditions or
requirements .has occurred, but an application involving any cha nge shall be .treated
as a new app lication.
Since rely,
Jackie C. You ng, AICP
Director of Pla nning and Building
cc:
Millstone Prope rty, LLC
Lee Ann Gilbert
To: Woodside PlaIUling Commission/and Planning Staff
J am, along with my husband, bill, the adjacent property owner
(2991-2995 woodside road) to the project proposed by mark sweyer on
2989 woodside road.
it is an understatement to say that i am quite upset about the parking crunch and attractive nuisance i believe will
occur if the proposed bakery, coffee shop, cafe, beer sales, restaurant, coffee bean roasting, elite racing bicylists'
hang out, cooking classes, banquet services, wine sales, and sandwich shop- have i left anything out?- is approved.
yesterday, at the may 2, A.S.R.B. meeting, it was quite an ear opening experience, for me, as i heard my own vo ice,
almost overcome with emotion .. .i hadn't realized how deeply invested i am in the fear i have regarding the negative
effects i believe will occur if sweyer's use, as proposed, is granted. my husband and i are already suffering from
robert's customers and employees parking which gobble up as much of 1/3 of our parkiug places, DAILY (along
with the trash and abandoned grocery bakets) ... we really don't want to tow our friends and neighbors who shop at
roberts but can't find a parking place, but his lack of adequate parking has really reached a crisis point! ...
sweyer's proposal, to the east of us, doesn't just promise to make our adjacent property parking a nightmare to
manage on that end of our lot, but it is too intense given the current parking scenario- which is lack of parking
EVERYWHERE; there is an absolute lack of "extra"
or spillover parking .. .it is obvious to anyone who has eyes that, currentl y, the pub eats up any/all avai lable parking
in the parking
district- which, by the way- is only ava ilable to them because some of the surrounding buildings are either empty or
some of the buildings are requiring less intensive parking needs- for now.
one thing i am very sure of and a need that i feel must be met ASAP- is an overview of and discussion of the who le
town's parking
siruation- followed up by a solutions discussion between the town, parcel owners and others? ... in addition, at the
very mininlUID, a crash course on the parking assessment district should be given to all decision makers in the town
BEFORE any discussions can take place- wi thout this info, they wi ll be severely handicapped ... few (if any at all) of
the current town staff, as well as our current town officials (except
susan) are well
versed in the history of- or understand- the major impact the parking assessment district's operational ru les (or lack
of) has on the participating district parcels as well as the town as a whole.
FYI: when the distri ct was created the parking assessments assigned were reflective of the contemporaneous parking
the intensity of the various uses, at the time, dictated the number of spaces
requirements of each parcel
assigned/assessed.. at the inception of the district, the number of spaces that were needed and therefore
"programmed" into the parking assessment did not include much flexibility for future major changes ... now, because
the entirety of spaces has never been completed, and the number of spaces originally assigned, is at times- a fit into
what yo u can find "sorta kinda" adventure- the time is ripe to take a good look at new possibilities and solutions.
because the declared original goal of the parking assessment district, was, in part, to util ize that financial mechanism
to finance the building of town hall parking, and to legitimize the existing uses of each parcel as defllled on the
assement distri ct's map, sweyer's proposal to change one of those original parcels' use from an office use to multiple
retail/restaurant uses brings up parking accommodations that were not contemplated- OR BUlLT. .. remember, when
the parking place allotments were set up, an assessment for each parcel owner- including ersted's buildings- were
described specificall y and reflected the current uses. HOWEVER---ersted's parcel is not a paid participant in the
district.
adding to the intrigue, to date, woody ersted- mark's landlord and one of those origi nal parcel owners- has not been
compelled to participate in the district- though he should have been ... this situation, in my opinion, has left his
building in a sort of "black hole" or in the most generous interpretation- status quo ... UNLESS and UNTIL ersted's
building is compelled to participate by purchasing parking spaces to accommodate his tenants' uses, his tenants'
applications for any increase in intensity should be denied .. .FYI- as of NOW there ARE NO "extra" spaces to
ATTACHMENT E
purchase, even if there was a vehicle by which this could happen ... reality check: the build-out of the di stri ct parking
hasn'l been compleled ...
another alamling nmion, i want to address, is that existing public parking is ava ilable to all," for any reason" ... that
claim, in my opinion, is debatable, panicul arly in the case when considering uses of buildings ... there may be some
Itperceived wiggle room" for tenants from a mile away- but that interpretation is now helping grow a di saster in the
parking dislric!.. whal i mean by Ihe seeds of disasler is Ihis:
tenants and their employees, who now park in the district when their parking was supposed to be accommodated ON
the parcel wherein their use exists, is patentl y un fa ir. .. why should di stri ct parcel owners pay for their parking? ... and
let's not forget the growing number of visiting bicyclists who fill over 20 spaces- every weekday- and much more on
Ihe
weekend- these are the seeds of di saster that are planted and growing, as i write this memo ... l11ore will be coming if
a "hang out" for them is created. where will they park, pray tell? most bring their cars, park
here- THEN go off 10 race Ihrough Ihe neighborhood.
perhaps the most di sturbing comments i heard at the meeting was that it seemed as if some members generall y
accepted that mark sweyer's multiple and intense uses, are go ing to be accommodated on 10 spacesL ..i think, on the
basis of the element of circulation alone, it would fail ... the intensity of one use, as mark described it in his
declaration to the A.SR.B., was to attract bicyclists who are the elite racing bicyclists- after all some of them have
"$20,000 bikes" (quole by mark sweyer) ...
i have heard various residents express serious and conflicting opinions as to who/what! residents want they wish
to see as "services" and lots of heat around bicyclists ... it is clear to me that we had better reach a consensus as a
town as to the
question: what kind of town do we want? .. .i for one, question: do we really want to be the playground/racetrack fo r
the bike riding eli te, who travel in packs, race through our winding roads and quiet
neighborhoods- and now race behind the buildings al ong woodside road- canying timing devices? . .i say no.
in conclusion, i want to object to an approva l of the sweyer proposal, because of the type of and proposed multitude
of uses on THIS PARTI CULAR parcel, because i believe tlle clues and evidence of our grossly inadequale parking
situation (that NOW exists- right under our
noses) diclale Ihal Ihal problem should be addressed FfRST ...... lhis parcel, does nOI belong 10 Ihe parking di stricI
and will simply not support the parking that conun on sense dictates would be needed because of the intensity and
type of uses mark sweyer is proposing.
no man is an island and neither is this parcel.
sincerely, lee ailli gilbert
(.!l
....z
UJ
2
J:
U
«
5