 We'll go ahead and call the order of the June 6th planning commission meeting if we can do roll call Commissioner Ruth, Commissioner Newman, Commissioner Kristen Thin, Commissioner Wilk, and Chair Welch. Here, thank you. Okay, we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, welcome to our audience. We probably have a much larger audience on watching on TV, I'm sure. So this meeting is cablecast live on charter communications cable TV channel 8 and AT&T Uverse channel 99. It is being read actually it's not on AT&T Uverse just to let you know because hasn't been there for like three months but we're working on it. It's also being recorded to be replayed on the following Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. on charter channel 71 and Comcast channel 25. Meetings can also be viewed from the city's website at www.cityofcapitola.org. Our technician tonight is Kingston Riviera and if you would just make sure your cell phones are on silence and we appreciate that. If you come up to speak just sign into our roster so we have that for a minute. With that we will go over to what we have next. Additions and deletions to the agenda. We received one addition to the agenda for item 4a on consent for 1375 Prospect Avenue. It was a change to a bathroom window and if this stays on consent we would just suggest that in the motion that it be noted with the additional change as amended. Copy that. Very good. Any public comments? This time is for those people who would like to talk to the planning commission about anything that's not on the agenda tonight so would you guys like to come up and talk to us? Nothing else on your mind? Okay. Very well. Seeing that we'll go ahead and we'll come back and ask for commission comments. We're seeing how what kind of record we could break for how quick we can get a meeting done tonight. Staff comments? No comments. Okay. So we're moving on pretty good. Now we're going to move to approval of our meetings from the minutes from our meeting on May 2nd. Move to approve the minutes. Motion. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. So that passes. Our next item is our consent calendar which the items on the consent counter get voted with one motion. We have two items one for 1375 Prospect and another one for 606 Burlingame. Is there anyone that would like to pull anything from the consent calendar? Any of our planning commissures? Yes. I had a question. I don't necessarily want to pull item A but I had a question for staff about it which is does the parking configuration meet the code? I mean we've got four spaces and they're all tandem spaces and I thought there's a limit on allowable tandem spaces without a variance. You have two in tandem behind the one in the garage and so this is two in tandem behind the one in the garage with another one off to the side so technically it's not three in a row. Three in a row wouldn't have worked. Well so the one that what tandem implies is that the car behind has to pull out and this one the one that you're not counting has two cars in its way in order for it to get in and out. Under code though it says you can have one in the garage with two tandem behind it. But there's one on the panel. There's one in the garage and three behind it. If you can pull it though. Yeah one's kind of parked on the patio that's kind of that's when you're talking about it. I mean it can't get out without that car behind it moving. So how can that not be a tandem space? You could back out of that. Depends on what you're driving. Huh? So you could pull out of that. Depends on what you're driving. Yeah if you're driving a helicopter. It is an interesting parking configuration. Yeah I mean we did explore an alternative of putting a whole another curb cut down on the south west corner but it just would have been you know more more curb cuts more pavement so and this this technically works the way we the code reads so. Would qualify for a variance. I guess it is an oddly shaped lot though it is very large and you know could have designed their way out of it I guess but. You know I guess it depends on the size of the vehicles it where they're at on how they get in and out. It's more of an inconvenience for the owners but I don't understand what you're saying. Mr. Newman about the tandem what the actual ruling is there. I mean it's tough in here is that you know what we're what we're required to do is have them show these 10 by 18 blocks there in reality you could actually park three cars in a row on that driveway and they would totally fit so most likely this parking arrangement won't actually. So you don't have to park in that diagonal configuration. Yeah it's more of a sort of a Tetris thing when you you're at this point of the code because that's a very large driveway there and they were only I believe a couple you know two feet short on being able to technically do three in a row but one that wouldn't be allowed by the code and two we have to have them show it correctly so. Okay so I'm not going to ask it to be pulled but I'm going to ask that we vote on the two items individually. Okay we can do that. So can I ask a question since we're on that process? Absolutely. I just wanted to make sure that we talked to Katie and I talked about this landscape plan thing is it clear that they when they submit the landscape plan that they don't need to have a higher landscape architect to do that. Yes they're aware of that. Thank you. So any more questions for staff or is anyone from the AUNTS guy concerned about our consent items? They will bring it back and I will do two separate motions and if we're going to make a motion for prospect we just got to remember the motion these include the supporting information that we received today. If you'd like I can pull up the section of code to review that prior to the motion. Is this coastal? It is in the coastal zone. So it's the old code. I read it. Okay. I mean apparently it's a interpretation here. I interpreted a little differently. I would move approval of 1375 Prospect Avenue with the addition of the condition regarding the three bathroom windows on the south side. Great. We have a motion. A second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? I'm opposed just for the record I think the parking requires a variance. Okay. So we have one opposing. So we'll move to 4B for the consent calendar. All those in I guess first we need to make a motion. Move approval. Second? Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. So that is approved unanimously. Okay. So that's it for the consent calendar. We'll move to public hearings. We have one item tonight which is 529 Capitol Avenue and we'll ask for a staff report. All right. So for our public hearings tonight we have 529 Capitol Avenue. The applicants are in attendance in the audience here. The applicant is applying for design permit and a conditional use permit to add two dormers to an existing historic residence located at 529 Capitol Avenue within the CN neighborhood commercial zoning district. The application requires a conditional use permit because it's a significant change to a historic structure. The existing residence is a non-conforming two-story single-family residence. The house is recognizable as a somewhat altered mid-19th century national style cottage. The national style is embodied in vernacular, steeply pitched gable roofed houses with half stories at the upper level. They are commonly clad in bored and batten siding and feature 2-2 or 1-1 double hung wood windows placed individually. The primary character of this historic house is obtained from its simple form and materials. So we have our existing elevations. Two good job of illustrating the eaves. That was an important line that needed to be preserved in this project. Then we have the proposed elevations. So the applicant is proposing to construct two new dormers, one on the northwest side and one on the southeast side of the existing second-story roof. So shown here. The bottom left image is the northwest side and the top left image is the southeast side. The dormers preserve the archetypical 1870s steeply pitched roofline at the front and rear elevations. The dormer will have shingle siding to distinguish the non-historic dormer additions from the bored and batten siding on the historic structure. And the proposed additions do not increase the floor area or height of the structure. The proposed project includes a significant alteration to the historic structure. Significant alterations require conditional use permit with approval by the Planning Commission. And any modification to a historic resource must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards to qualify for a CEQA exemption. Architectural historian Leslie Dill has reviewed the project and concluded that it is compatible with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation. Local historian Carolyn Swift provided additional information about the history of the structure at the Ark and Sight Review Committee meeting and requested that complete and accurate history of the building be documented. Leslie Dill reviewed the materials and provided a memo in which she determined that the changes in explanation of the historic background do not change the description or list of character defining features of the historic property and maintained her previous conclusion that the potential project does not diminish the historic integrity of the significance of the property. So with that staff recommends Planning Commission approve the design permit and conditional use permit based on the conditions of approval and findings. Okay thank you. Any questions for staff? Just a minor question is the plans usually have more of a have a page that shows the particular parcel in relation to the rest of the area and there wasn't maybe it's not that relevant for this particular application. The streetscape? Yeah it wasn't at least in my set I couldn't find anything that showed the overall site. We've got a couple of those lately in context. I think it would be a good idea. I mean this one there's no real change in any side yards or height or anything so maybe it's not as necessary. With the adjacent structures that one? Which we typically chose the street and the parcel. Frank Fenton usually catches that but he didn't catch it on here and I think I didn't notice because it was such a small addition to the adjacent structure. What's at issue here probably doesn't really require that kind of information. It'd be nice to have it though as a general practice. Frank keeps me honest with that. I usually tell applicants up front to make sure to show the outlying properties for privacy reasons. Okay any other questions for staff? If not would the applicant like to speak? If you're going to serve you want to come up to the microphone so we can hear you and then you can be on TV. That's okay. Should I sign in? Yes. Sure. Okay I'm Jim LaTorre and I've my wife and I, Kathy, bought the house recently and we are actually capitolans from back in the early 80s when we moved got married and moved to Depot Hill so we're pretty familiar with capitol and over the years. My wife has a preschool and I was a school principal and administrator for 35 years and now recently retired and we're super excited to be back in Capitola and super excited to have the opportunity to have this house. It's a really cool house in fact. I just in knowing people went to a 100-year-old lady's birthday not too long ago and I was talking to her and she said Jimmy I heard you moved and I said yeah she goes what's the address and I said 529 Capitola Avenue and she told me that her mother was born in that house in 1899. Okay. Yeah and so it's pretty cool. There's some history. It's the Canepa family who and then one of the girls married a GEO and that's Castagnolo so it's all the old-time Italian Fisher people so it's pretty cool history for me because I'm Italian and I kind of relate to that a little bit. Nice. So and the house is a really cool house. We don't want to diminish the fact that it's a historic house and has some significance to Capitola but I probably should have come with a band-aid over my forehead because there's some places I in order to get into the bed I have to kind of lean over so what we're looking to do is just to raise the roof a little bit so we can have some and you saw in the pictures how steep it is. The stairs are super non-compore me neither they're super steep and so we just want to get it so it's livable for the two of us and and so we just hope that you guys could see that that we're not trying to build a three-story monstrosity we're just trying to do what's right for us to live in comfortably but understand that we want to keep the history of Capitola there. Very nice. Anything else. Don't talk anymore. Thank you thank you very good. Well you moved in you moved into a neighborhood with a number of principals so yes you did well. Most of us don't have principals either. Yeah I won't go there but I'll bring that back to that there's no other that would like to speak which I guess we're not we'll bring it back to the planning commission for discussion and motion. I'd just like to say I'm glad you purchased the place because it was getting neglected and now it's going to survive and be restored so that's great comments so we don't have any comments and someone could make a motion if you feel like a good project to me. I move approval. Okay so we have approval we have a second. We have a second all those in favor. Hi. Hi Natum it's very good thank you and good it's gonna be a beautiful house. Glad to have you. Keep in the history. Great okay so that concludes most of our meeting now we'll go to the director's report. Yes I have three items tonight first first item is I received a letter from the architect on 1810 Warfrode and this is the property that you can see across the river they in their preservation plan they said they would be saving all of the exterior siding and what they did is they numbered every piece they piled it up and they've stored it as they're at the point of going to put this back up they've in going through the boards there's quite a few boards there's a significant amount of boards that are damaged and they're asking rather than then putting all the boards back on place or picking from the best and doing just one area that they'd like to have new boards milled to match what was existing under the criteria the community development director is allowed to approve minor modifications to a project I'm prepared to approve this but I wanted to just check in with the planning commission and see if you'd prefer that I put this on an agenda item rather than make an administrative decision on allowing the boards to be replicated but I do feel that from the evidence they provided that it would be the best decision. Didn't we do that on the Linz House? We did this on the water tower at the Linz House. You may have I wasn't involved with that this this came up at 124 Central previously as they were preparing to put the boards back they only ended up putting back a section of the boards because of the significant termite damage so this is one of the oldest structures in Capitola and the boards are not all the same measurements and when they remill them they also will make sure they're not the same exact measurements so they'll keep the funkiness of the building and the original concept but they'd like it to last a whole lot longer and that's what they're requesting so I just wanted to check in see if you'd like this to come back to planning commission or if you're okay with a development or I mean I'm fine with your judgment on this but it seems like since this is happening more than once that when we make these kind of decisions at the beginning we should kind of take this into account that when they start construction it's not gonna it's gonna be a little different than we probably think when the plans come in yeah and we stress that to applicants when they come in is if you want this you should really request this at the time of approval by planning commission yeah I think the alternative to what are their choices here but just delay the process and get the same results so I don't have a problem anybody have a problem with just in that ministry and I think there's precedent because I think we allowed that on the water tower at the Linn's house and then years ago I think when one of the six sisters was restored the one it would be the one the northerly one right I think we allowed that on that case too and we did at 124 central so it's good memory these houses are old so thinking that we're going to put the old wood back up there is it's nice but it's very optimistic like you said okay and next case next is the city has received a conceptual review application for the village hotel project so the conceptual review application is in there were some minor changes we asked in there for the actual submittals we sent them an incomplete letter they were planning on coming back in this week and they did today okay so that that is officially in so we're going to be seeing how much room we have on the agenda for the July hearing but you may be seeing that as soon as July we'll try our best because this is a big project to get that packet out and in a timely manner or if you'd like to see the plans ahead of the packet we're happy to provide those to you because it will take time to digest and they're just asking some some broad questions for the conceptual review prior to moving forward with a formal application okay are they're gonna do are we gonna do the city any special notification other than seems like we need to make the whole city aware of it's a major so we typically notice to anyone within 500 feet would your recommendation be a thousand feet or yeah I'll take about something in the newsletter yeah I mean this is really a controversial yeah they're already organizing yeah so if we could put something that maybe it doesn't have to be as formal as the notification we do for 500 feet but the city website and and the city news that are like we can do extensive noticing um I'll broaden it to at least all the the residential neighborhoods around the village not just the village and I'll have them do an article I can definitely do that yeah this is not really an issue of neighborhood it's yeah it's a whole city it's a whole city yeah yeah so we'll get it on the web page we'll we'll inform the local newspaper um as far as the newsletter I don't think that will go out in time for the but prior to the July hearing so and and the July's this is a conceptual review it is conceptual reviews so if but this is the time probably yeah I mean I would even think if we can't put in a newsletter before the July hearing that might be a good reason to do it in the August I would delay the meeting I I agree that we need to get all the input before we get too far down the road we're going to end up some so I have a question about the process this is a big deal as you pointed out and doesn't that mean that this is inevitably going to go in front of the city council it will it will go this conceptual review they've um paid the fee to go before planning commission and city council so it'll go so we're just an intermediate step well we're but we're a big intermediate step because we're the ones that will be making the decisions on the initial changes and stuff so um it will it goes to us for approval before it gets to the city council so if there's going to be any issues we we need to hear them out I think before just we just need to make sure that we let everyone have their chance to share their concerns or favor either way and just I've seen other issues there were big issues where people came in and you know petitions and this and that in front of the planning commission and felt you know oh gosh we got to do this again in front of the city council and it just seemed to me that process seems very the general plan oh i'm go ahead corny the general plan process this was really a big part of the general plan process probably biggest behind uh 41st avenue mall and so I agree with the chair that we we want to make sure that nobody feels that this is kind of being slipped through in some way or that there are hearings that they weren't aware of that from the very beginning as this thing proceeds and the city council in my experience I mean we're just a planning commission we deal with all the planning issues they deal with some planning issues and lots of other things too so they rely to some extent on what we do here and we it's not just a waste of time to come before the planning commission and then go to the city council in my experience so do you feel that that we perform a different function than the city council was do you think my thought was that you know they're going to go bend over backwards to satisfy stats requirements and then they come in front of the planning commission and then we give them a bunch of requirements and in fact that if they were to go directly to the city council maybe none of those requirements were really needed to get past the city council and so if we're in fact providing valuable either information for the city council or or a legitimate intermediate stat by I think we're a filter and we iron out a lot of the issues for they get to the city council so the city council doesn't have to deal with them I mean our decisions can be appealed but that's why we exist if we didn't have that function if we followed your route there are no reason for us to sit here well I and I understand that argument I just thought that this since this is such a big thing and and clearly all the city councilmen are all very aware of all the issues and I was just wondering if we were providing in my yeah they deal with it with something like this in general not all the time and in general at a more of a policy level a higher level and we're down kind of in the trenches dealing with the details of plans and having them come back and so forth okay so okay so we would get the idea would be we dig deeper in theory anyway and then provide a recommendation that they could really take to heart that this was a well studied decision and maybe even listen to us and yeah whether that's into it is a whole different issue but at least very yes we could do our due diligence absolutely all right fair enough thank you very good okay okay yeah and i'll just echo that in these very large projects the planning commission plays a very important role in my mind because as you see when in the larger projects the recommendations in reviewing recent development agreements in other cities and preparing for them all the strong recommendations by planning commission they may get tweaked when they get to city council and some of them may get removed or added to but it's a very important role in setting up you know your recommendation and what should be included in a project or removed from a project so and it does it and it gives the opportunity for the the developer between the planning commission stage and the city council stage at least a conceptual review to be brainstorming and have can bring up additional mitigation points when they get in front of city council based on planning commission's concerns that are highlighted during your review so with that i'll move on to the next item so as you all know from your hard work back in february and march on the zoning code update the city council has been reviewing the updates at the last three hearings i believe i've presented to the planning to the city council and during the first meeting they asked that we slow down and make sure that we have a thorough legal review of the document before resubmitting to the coastal commission so our city attorney read Galligli has been working on the review of that and i've just been bringing forward the minor amendments of things we've noticed over the year of implementation so reed's presentation will be at the june 27th meeting and during that meeting he's going to be looking at which items are an overreach of the coastal commission's power for whether or not they they're within their power under the coastal act to suggest within our document and then we'll be dividing those into two categories of which which are kind of the the gray areas that we maybe can live with and we don't think are negative for or will have a negative impact on our residents in our city and which of those items are more impactful and we shouldn't allow to occur so we'll be the june 27th meeting should be of interest and you're welcome to watch on video after or come and come and attend and in hindsight i'll just say that we went through that section pretty fast on the coastal commission and i'll bring back reports after the city council review but i'm i'm confident that after the legal review we've had such significant changes occur that this will be coming back to you before we submit it to coastal commission so at that point i'll slow down i'll go through everything give you adequate time to digest maybe we'll have a couple special meetings where it's such important information and then move forward with a new recommendation to the city council at the correct time so any questions regarding that process at this time you know okay well that concludes the director's report thank you okay very good thanks katie uh commission communications no okay we're looking forward to a car show weekend so the city will be closed down more or less for through traffic but that's about it with that we'll adjourn the meeting thank you very much but when is the july meeting oh yeah that's 18 18 because it always gets pushed because the 4th of july yeah that's what i was thank you july 18 thank you