 Welcome to the Capitola Planning Commission meeting. In accordance with California Senate Bill 361, this meeting is not physically open to public. Commissioners and staff are meeting via Zoom and there are several ways for the public to watch and participate. Information on how to join the meeting using the Zoom application or a landline or mobile phone along with how to submit public comments during the meeting tonight is available on our website cityofcapitola.org and on the published meeting agenda. As always, our meeting is cable cast live on charter communications cable TV channel eight in the city of Capitola and on channel 25 throughout Santa Cruz County. This meeting is being recorded to be a rebroadcast the following Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. Meeting can also be streamed live on YouTube or on the city's website. Our technician tonight is Olivia Feely. And with that, we can begin the meeting with the roll call. Luis, we have a roll call please. 15, can you, I'm not sure how many, but we received additional public comment on the 15, 15 prospect application. I don't believe we've received any other additional public comment today and anything else would have been received within 24 hours on other projects. On the 15, 15 on the consent calendar, should we not pay attention to last minute comments until we need to, or should we distribute those because some comments came in at the very last minute. The commissioners, have you all received the last minute comments that came in regarding that application to give time to review them? Yes, but we also got one on 106 clip. Okay, so we've also received a comment on 106. Thank you. So is there anybody who has not had a chance to see or review those? Hearing none, I'll consider those added to the agenda as attachments. And with that, we can move on to public comments. This is the time when members of the public can speak on items that are not on the agenda, short communication, three minutes or less. Katie, are there any, anybody on the Zoom or an email who wishes to join us with public comments on items not on the agenda? The attending is now on Zoom and I do not have any time for it. We're checking our email public comments not have any new email public comments. Very good. Then let's move on to commission comments. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on items which are not on the agenda? If no one else does, I do. I have, I'd like to speak a little bit in general about the process. Because there are a lot of homeowners on tonight's agenda, I thought this was an appropriate time to express my sympathy to all applicants, not just tonight, but everybody who's had to endure this bureaucratic nightmare, which is the permitting process. Sometimes it can be very onerous and I've been through it as well. And in fact, my experience actually drove me to get involved in local government so that if I couldn't change it, at least I could understand it. The good news is that the process has gotten better over the years. It's streamlined. We now have a new municipal code which is more clear on its requirements. The development and design review now focuses more on technical requirements rather than and subjective requirements. And we have more and more projects that can be approved with staff review and not even reach this committee. So, but when it does come to this committee, we do have responsibilities, planning commission's responsibility to represent the community, the community's interest and represent them and interpret the municipal code in the general plan Unfortunately, this is a task infused with a lot of different interpretations of those documents. And although I believe an applicant should reasonably expect predictable and consistent rulings, we've got a long way to go. Five miles cannot always act as one. So again, hopefully tonight's agenda, we can get a lot of win-win results, but I just wanted to express my sympathies towards this process. It is very difficult for the applicants and the neighbors and I feel your pain. So with that, I would like to move on to staff comments. Does staff have any comments? Yes, I do have staff comments. I just wanted to let the planning commission know and the public know that we received an appeal on 1410 Prospect Avenue, which we have not set a date yet for coastal, for the city council to review at this time, but we're hoping to set a date either the next city council meeting or the meeting after that. There's a few items. We had an appeal from the RTC regarding the zero setback on the rear lot line. And as they're looking at development plans for the future of the rail, they have concerns with the zero setback. So forward to the applicant and hoping we'll have that in front of the city council at some point this summer. If there are no more staff comments, let's move on to item three, which is the approval of the minutes. Let's take the minutes one at a time. Are there any comments or changes to the minutes of March 3rd, 2022? Hearing none, are there any changes or comments to March 31 special meeting minutes? And if no one else has any comments, I do. I believe there's an error on item three A with regards to parking in the setbacks. I discussed this with Brian and suggested an edit. If Brian's there, if he could maybe read it. I basically said that the issue that at least I was concerned with was, I didn't wasn't concerned with three stories. I was more concerned with the notion of sacrificing setback for parking as opposed to sacrificing setback for three stories. So Brian, are you there? Can you read my edit? Yeah, we had you edited. We actually added a new sentence that says, commissioner will preferred parking in the front yard rather than sacrificing front yard setback. That's my only comment to that. And if that has been amended and no one has any objections to that amendment, I'm ready to hear a motion to approve the minutes of both March 3rd and March 31st, 31st. If anyone cares to move such. Anybody interested in approving the minutes, commissioners? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for March 3rd and March 31st. This is commissioner Westman. All right, we have a motion to approve by commissioner Westman and a second by commissioner Christensen. Are there any other comments? If not, Louie, could we have a roll call vote? Yes. Aye. Very good. The minutes are approved as amended. Let's move on to item number four, which is the consent calendar. This is an item where we address all the items under the consent calendar as one and make a motion to approve or deny. Does anybody wish to pull any of the items from the consent calendar? This is commissioner Westman. I would ask that you take the item separately since I need to recuse myself on the Oak Drive project because I live too close to it. All right, very good. So let's do that. Let's talk about item four A504 Oak Avenue. Do we have a motion to approve? So moved. A motion to approve. Commissioner Roof moves approval of item A. Is there a second? A second. Commissioner Christensen provides the second. Are there any comments? If not, Louie, could we have a roll call vote on consent calendar item four A? Aye. Aye. I'm recusing myself. Aye. So consent calendar item four A passes. Let's move on to consent calendar item four B, 1515 Cossack Avenue. Are there any commission comments on that item or does anybody wish to make a motion? I approve approval. Oh, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Newman. Yeah, I'm not sure if it's clear. I know there was some concern neighbor concern about the project and I'm not sure that they are aware that they have the opportunity to also turn this into a public hearing. Excellent point. Let's bring that out to public comments and Katie, can you reach out to the public and ask is there anybody who wishes to bring item, consent item four B into the public hearing? Yes. So we've brought up on our screen how to participate and if any member of the public would like this item pulled off of consent agenda for public discussion, now would be the time to raise your hand in Zoom. You can dial star nine to raise your hand or else if you're in the app, you have the ability to raise your hand. I'm gonna go and look at our, I'm not seeing, I'm gonna check our public comment under email. So it looks like we did have a member of the public that needed the code to be updated to join and Brian our senior planner sent that to that person but it was not regarding public comment on this project. Now I'm gonna go to Zoom and I do not see any attendees with their hands up either. So there's no request to pull this off of the consent agenda. In that case, I will move approval. There's already a motion on the floor, Ed. Would you take a second? And I'll take it. I already have a second. So we have a motion by Chris. Well, then I'll vote for it. I'll take it by commissioner, Chris. And we have a roll call vote please. Aye. Aye. It passes unanimously. So we have, we can move on from the consent calendar now to public hearing. This is an opportunity for the public to discuss each item individually. We'll have a staff presentation followed by questions from the commission followed by public comments. Then finally the deliberation and decision. First up on public hearings is item 5a 519 Monterey Avenue. Staff, do we have a presentation? Thank you, Chair Wilk. I'll be giving the presentation. Pull up my screen here. So proposal 519 Monterey Avenue. This is a design permit proposal for a first and second floor addition of 140 square feet. There are front and rear facing upper decks and there's a proposed new fence and gate in the front yard. I'll note here on the site plan that the property is sitting on the side two story single family homes and then has a wooded area behind it between it and the Brookvale Terrace Mobile Home Park. There's sort of a natural transition. This wooded area drops down about 35 feet and is about 50 feet wide horizontally. And then across from the middle school. So really only two flanking single family neighbors with this property. So I had to apologize for flipping the site plan sideways just the aspect ratio I had to do it. So I'm gonna go left to right and just introduce the project. What you have is the driveway there adjacent to Monterey. The tan highlighting is the first floor and the green is the second floor. I'll call attention to the, on the right side of the green there's a little pop out on the first floor it's a bathroom that was added on looks like after the original home was built. Part of the proposal here is to rebuild that bathroom in location and then to add two bathrooms that are accessed off of the second floor above. And then wrapping around that is a proposed upper floor deck at the rear taking access from the two adjacent bedrooms and then off the front and 88 square foot deck takes access from another bedroom facing the front. This is set into what is now the attic of the garage and the roof framing and ridge of the garage roof. So looking at the elevation drawings upper left that's just what I was describing. That's the front deck and then the lower right purple highlights are the floor area additions upper and lower consisting of three bathrooms and the deck railing and span on the lower or right in the rear. We did give some feedback to the applicant during the plan review process primarily about privacy and mitigation measures. They did bring back some modifications to the plan and these elevations show they're proposing partitions along the side which would offer some privacy mitigation to the side yard neighbors that I pointed out. And the form here is for the bottom 42 inches which is required railing would be a little half wall or parapet wall wrapped in a similar cladding as the primary dwelling. And then the upper 30 inches would either be they could be either or of terrace sorry in like opaque window or trellis cap. These are mitigation also point out the projection here is 12 feet from the face of the building. Second layer of mitigation that they're proposing is landscape screening. And this is a cutaway of the site plan for the rear yard so the deck in plan view the two highlights flanking either side in the green those are rectangles that measure five feet by 20. And the idea here is to propose 10 foot tall at installation those would likely be 24 inch box bay laurel screening which is a pretty common evergreen shrub or hedge type plant that is used for this purpose. So two layers of mitigation proposed. The one difference with our recommendation from staff tonight is we're adding a third layer of mitigation here and that is to bring the deck back to a max projection of seven feet. And primary reason for that is just in review of the design review criteria highlighted F with privacy. I think that's the primary reason for this recommendation and what it does I'm gonna take the pointer here is it brings this flush with the bathrooms so it further enhancing the mitigation on all sides of these decks but still does allow for a reasonable amount of area for enjoyment for the applicant. For a bit of context we've got some just site photos we did do a site visit and met with the architect. We also received one email from 601 Monterey. The conclusion of that email was recommending the staff seven foot condition but otherwise supporting the project and then at 515 Monterey we received a letter of full support for the project and the lower two photos are just looking out over the wooded area on the left profile view of the rear of the residence on the right. So with that just highlighting some of the conditions upper floor decks we've been requiring a code minimum amount of lighting and having it be compliant with dark sky and be shielded to prevent light trespass and then we're recommending condition 13 which is to reduce the deck projection to seven feet. I would just like to offer that the applicant was very cooperative and very receptive to these mitigations and so to their credit but they did wanna be heard with the proposed 12 foot projection as originally presented. So I believe they have a short presentation but that's the exclusion of mine and I'd be happy to take questions. Are there any questions of staff? Commissioner Weston? No. Well I have a question. This is Chair Wilk. Could you please reiterate why you the staff felt that the privacy mitigation that were presented were inadequate? Yeah, I think there's another layer of this too. I kind of touched on it but the design review criteria I'm gonna go back to my show here. Talk about massing and scale and this is actually proud of the building and creates a new building line so there's a bit of a design element. That on top of the functionality of a larger deck is gonna be accommodate longer activity which could present more noise and a bigger impact to the neighboring properties. So I think the two design criteria F and H are your reasons. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Okay. Let's see. What do I do next here? We're ready for public comment. Does the applicant wish to make a statement? In the Zoom. Brian, I apologize. I don't know the applicant's last name. Is it Marc Sikowski? I believe so, yeah. Okay, so George Marc Sikowski. Mr. Marc Sikowski, go ahead. I believe I need Sean possibly to unmute. Okay, can you hear me okay right now? Okay, so this is George Marc Sikowski. I'd like to thank you for actually supporting the seven feet and hopefully we will move to the next step. The idea behind the 12 was that both of those bedrooms facing that direction are designed for kids. So the idea behind was so they can just go from last to right and right way. This is not for any party. I mean, those bedrooms are pretty small. And that's my explanation of what I was trying to achieve but I am very happy with whatever was presented right now. And I'd like to thank you for everybody and hopefully we'll go to the next stage. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Marc Sikowski. Are there any other public comments? Katie? We have Elizabeth Batron and Sean, could you please unmute? Elizabeth, you should be able to speak now. Thank you. Hi, thank you so much for taking a minute to hear me. I'm the neighbor at 601 Monterey. We've lived there 23 years. And I am fine with having a second story deck next door but I did just make a request that I agree with staff that I think a depth of seven feet is sufficient. And so I'm simply asking to do that because I feel that's more in keeping in context with the existing community neighborhood and the sound levels. I'll tell you quite honestly, I'm here at my daughter's house in Denver and their Airbnb rules are such that folks can, she has an Airbnb next door. And when you're sleeping with the windows open, which is one of the nice things to be able to do in your house every night, if people are out on the porch until as they were last week, 3.30 in the morning talking. Just having a porch that's a smaller size would indicate that it would stay a quieter space. And I do know that the city has recommended the seven foot depth and other instances. And I'm just hoping that you'll consider it again and that there's this one. And that's it. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mrs. Bertrand. Any other comments? Comments from architect John Hossaker. He's shown if we can allow him to speak. Hi, this is John. I've unmuted. Can you hear me? Yeah. Oh, thanks for all your efforts on the project. And Brian was very good throughout the whole process. And my question just is, I'm assuming that the side screens would still be in the project and the side vegetation. But that can be clarified. That's it. So, I think that's really a question of staff. So they've done mitigation attempts, namely the vegetation and side screens which were deemed inadequate. And so as a result, staff recommended moving it back to seven feet. Does that mean that the requirements for the side screens and vegetation are still in the requirements for our conditions for approval? Or is he allowed to change his drawings to remove those if he gets the seven foot setback or the seven foot porch? So the staff recommendation to be clear is with the mitigation as proposed and with the staff recommendation that the deck be pulled back. So if the commission wants to entertain alterations, that's your purview, but our recommendation is with mitigation as presented. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? I have a question of this witness person. Go ahead, Commissioner Newman. I'm kind of confused about the applicant's position regarding the lessening of the side of the extent of the deck. Is that something that is acceptable to the applicant? Is it a concern or what? So is that a question to Mr. Marcinkowski or to Mr. Ophace, Hopaker, sorry. Yeah, it could be either, but I thought maybe Mr. Hopaker could address that. I'm here, can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah, okay, good. Actually, it would be George Marcinkowski who does it, the seven feet is acceptable from my understanding with George. And I think he'd be doing the side screens and the planting also. I can't speak for him on that. I'm just confused whether he'd rather plant more materials and not have the side screens or have side screens and not do the planting or he's happy doing both as he wants a little more privacy also. So if George can get on and address these things, it would be more clear. That would be helpful to me. Mr. Marcinkowski, are you on? Yes, yes, yes. It's possible to, in terms of a green barrier, I would prefer that instead of having like some kind of pheromones and things on a balcony. I always support more privacy. And I think I'm okay with seven feet. This can be very nice actually, addition to the house and a nice place for care. I mean, those bedrooms are small and idea behind was to just make some kind of an additional area. So I'm okay with that. But if I can eliminate some things, I would rather prefer some something green, very tall than wooden barrier or any kind pheromones barriers on the balcony. But I am happy with what I hear from you guys. So I'll report you supporting the project. Thank you, Commissioner Newman. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. Are there any other, let's see, any other public comment? If not, let's move on to planning, commission deliberation. Does anybody want to start in on this? I have a question. Commissioner Roof, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I can support either the staff recommendation or the original plan, but I do have a question for staff. And if there's going to be a six-foot opaque wall on both sides of the deck, it would seem that if the deck extended out further, the resident would have a less of a view of the backyards of the adjacent homes than if the deck were shorter. That's the problem I'm having with this. Ryan, can you address that? Yeah, I'm just not sure how you arrived at the back that by shortening of the deck, it affords more privacy. It gives you a bigger view into the joining yards that way. But it does eliminate this connection. So there is a viewpoints along here. So we can go to a site plan. So if the wall was shortened to here, this is the staff recommendation is seven feet is here. So the question is, or the point is this is more screening to extend it out? No, I'm assuming there's going to be some sort of opaque feature wall six foot high, not the latticework because you mentioned also the opaque glass on each side of the deck. And if that's the case, if you extend the deck out further, there's less of an angle to look into the backyards of the adjacent homes. With a shorter deck, you can see more of the backyard of the adjacent home, which is actually less privacy. Usually putting blinders on the horse. Yeah, I think I understand. So to be clear that there's an either or option here that the commission could talk about if you want to get into details, but they talk about a lattice cap or opaque. So we were fine with either or. We didn't parse through that detail. But as far as the extension, I think in the second finding that I talked about about projecting, a deck is not counted as flurry. It's not quantified in any measurable development standard. So we are trying to mitigate the ability to use it, this space, but also find the compromise of allowing an applicant to use it. When it projects also further than the building line, it's creating a new bulk and mass. So there's a design element to our recommendation as well. Okay, yeah, like I said, I can support it either way. Let me just weigh in that I also am okay with the privacy mitigation that the applicant originally submitted. And don't feel that the additional recommendations by staff are required. Anybody else want to comment? One more. Go ahead. Sorry, I just needed, you broke up Commissioner Wilk. I just wanted to hear what you just said. Oh, I'm sorry. I just said that the original, the middle by the applicants, which with the larger deck, but with the privacy mitigations that he proposed, namely the green vegetation, as well as the side barriers are okay, as far as I'm concerned. And that recommendation doesn't need to be addition to that. Addition to that. I guess, thank you for feeding yourself. All right, I see Commissioner Westman's hand up. I don't have any particular project problems with the project. I think they've done a nice job with it. I do agree with staff to accommodate people in the neighborhood that having the seven foot deck is more appropriate. And for me, if they have the seven foot deck, I think that they could eliminate the requirement for the planting along the fence because reducing the deck to seven feet is about noise coming from the deck, not so much people looking into the neighbor's yard. So I could support it with the staff recommendations, but eliminating the landscaping requirement along the fence. Commissioner Newman. As a general proposition, I agree with Commissioner Wilkin. I think Commissioner Ruth on the original design being adequate. I'm concerned about, I find it very difficult to navigate this issue of how far we should go in modifying an applicants project that meets the technical standards of the city based on subjective protections for other property owners, neighboring property owners. It just seems like it's a very arbitrary and difficult, I guess, balancing for me to get a handle on. And I'm concerned about the staff kind of getting too proactive in that regard. Taking one side or the other on these issues of how much, I mean, the concern of the one neighbor regarding short-term rentals, which I don't think that's a concern, this isn't in the short-term rental district, is it? So she was concerned about people partying at 3 a.m. I don't know how applicable that is. So I'm fine, since the applicant doesn't seem to be screaming about the change, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just go forward with this application, but I do wanna support the comment of Commissioner Wilk that we should be careful about how much we restrict otherwise valid applications. Thank you. Any other comments, Mr. Christensen? I completely agree with your comment, Commissioner Wilk and Commissioner Newman. I think that there's nothing limiting him from having the 12-foot deck. And I mean, him being so kind to take the suggestions is wonderful, but it's not up to us to design the deck. And I agree with that. Basically everything Commissioner Newman just said. Would you like to make a motion? I would make a motion to approve. I mean, I don't have any problem with this original design. I would kind of, in my mind, I would want to give him the opportunity to have the 12-foot deck. Is that, I mean, but that's not what staff is suggesting at this point, is it? Is that? I would staff is suggesting, but you can certainly move to move to approve the application as originally submitted. I'd like to do that. Could I move to approve the application as originally submitted with the 12-foot deck and the landscaping screening? I would like to add a condition to the approval. And that would be that on both sides of the deck, the six-foot wall be made of opaque material and not lattice. Yes, lattice is like. Are you willing to accept that amendment, Commissioner Christensen? Yes, yes. Okay, and is that then therefore a second Commissioner Ruth? Yes, I'll second. Okay, we have a proposal by Commissioner Christensen and a second by Commissioner Ruth. Is it clear what we're moving, Brian? Yes, that would strike condition 13 and it would add a new condition to clarify that the cap on the wall be opaque and not the lattice option. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this motion? If not, let's take a vote. Louie, can we have a real call vote please? Yes, my question is. Hi. Commissioner Newman. Hi. No. Application pass is four to one. Good luck, Mr. Marcinkowski. And we are ready to move on to item 5B, which is 106 Cliff Avenue that we have a staff report. Good evening. The application before you includes a design permit, historical alteration permit, coastal development permit, as well as a variance request or variance request to historic three-story single family residence at 106 Cliff Avenue. The presentation tonight focuses on items that were addressed during the April 7th hearing, but we're prepared to discuss any topics that were covered in the staff report. The site as it appears today, located in the Depot Hill neighborhood, surrounded by a variety of historic properties, overlooking the Capitol Village. The applicant is proposing additions and modifications to the primary dwelling unit and for the demolition of two nonhistoric structures located along the rear property line. And to construct a new accessory structure that includes a ADU or accessory dwelling unit and two car garage is the proposed site plan. I wanna add that there haven't been any design modifications or site plan alterations since it was last seen during the April 7th meeting. These are the existing and proposed elevations to the front. Proposed and existing elevations on the side, just on the left side. This is the rear elevation existing and proposed. The new second-story deck is proposed on the rear, accessible from both within the residence as well as by an external spiral staircase and this deck is about 246 square feet. So this is just a top graphical view of it with the aerial to give a better idea of the context of structures and open space. The orange is the approximate layout of the actual conditioned massing and then the blue is the second-story deck. The nearest residence is 108 Cliff Avenue to the north that's approximately 18 feet away. Staff visited the site and took several photos from the second-story. On the left you have 108 Cliff Avenue from the north corner of the existing structure and on the right you have a view towards the rear of the property and in the far background you can see the existing garage and this fence line is about where the front of the proposed ADU will be just to give you some spatial context. This is the proposed combination ADU and barrage. The ADU itself is subject to limited standards including a maximum size of 800 square feet, maximum height of 16 feet and four feet rear and side setbacks which the proposed ADU does comply with. Following the last meeting we did add condition number 24 which requires that the ADU's chimney not be wood-burning. Public comments regarding the chimney itself as well as its proximity to the redwood tree we just gave a bit of a view for perspective of where that chimney is in relationship to it. It's approximately from our view about 10 feet away from the canopy. So the applicant is requesting a number of variances including for the height limitations of second story additions or height limitations of the proposed primary structures new chimney and for the floor area calculation methodology to the portions of the first two rooms of the third story. The areas in blue here you can see on these elevations represent the added massing of solid red lines showing the maximum height of 27 feet. For historic additions and a dashed red line slightly above that shows the maximum allowed height for chimneys regardless of whether or not they're on historic structures of 28 feet. The structure itself is historic and protected within capital zoning code and under the California Environmental Quality Act. The primary structure is on a slope plot with steep existing roofs which impose difficulties in designing compatible additions that comply both with historic standards for additions and modifications as well as the city's height limitations. Starred properties shown above indicate which properties exceed the maximum allowable height. 114 grand is the property that is slightly brighter than the other stars that indicates the property that also has an existing chimney that exceeds the maximum allowable height. It's above table provides height standards for R1 development as well as comparing them to the variance requests. You want me, I can read that for you, looks like. Maximum heights for chimneys exceed that of the structure massing. On this slide we have two forward rooms on the third story. The existing structure includes a unique third story with three spaces of varying ceiling heights. The entire turret space and a portion of the central space currently exceed four feet in height and therefore count towards the floor area ratio calculation. In order to gain additional floor area, the applicant is requesting a variance to exempt the turret and central space from the floor area calculation. The rearmost room which is not pictured is directly accessible via a staircase and will continue to count as floor area. Typically structures can be designed or redesigned such that roof heights and attic spaces would not count towards the FAR or floor area ratio. In this instance, the turret and forward gable roof are prominent and historically significant features which would need to be altered in order to exempt these spaces from the calculation. Structures similarly constrained against raising the ceiling heights to increase habitable function. A variance specific to the floor area of the forward two spaces would offset approximately 165 square feet and allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with other properties and the vicinity. Therefore staff has supported this request. Regarding the chimney height variance request, staff does not believe findings B, C and E can be made to support a variance for the proposed chimney. The structure does have an existing chimney and could utilize a direct vent or an exterior wall on an exterior wall in lieu of a chimney or look for somewhere else to place it. 114 Grand Avenue which has a chimney measures only approximately 30 feet from grade as compared to the 41 feet of this proposed chimney. With that, staff recommends the commission approve the project but deny the variance for the primary structure's chimney available for any questions. Do any of the commissioners have any questions of staff at this time? Yes, I do. Mr. Westman, excuse me, Mr. Newman. My question is, was this the Reading residence previously? Yes. No, it was the Fonts residence. Oh, Fonts, I'm sorry. Oh, this was? Yeah, wait a minute. Okay, yeah, I wasn't sure about that. That's in my, I will hold my comment. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? I have a question of staff. Sean, you know, I was able to talk and answer a lot of my questions prior to this meeting because there was a lot of things that were confusing to me. And that was excellent in clearing my questions and giving me a square head on, or a clear head on what this is all about and what makes sense and what doesn't. So I appreciate the time spent getting my head straight. But I still have a problem with your chimney and the rationale for it being a special privilege. So if the notion of the turret, so this question for you, Sean, so you're saying that the turret and the area around the turret is worthy of a variance because basically this is a historical structure and if they're gonna keep it a historical and make it look the same, they're basically stuck with that location or with that turret in that space and so there's nothing they can do about it. So basically we're giving them a break on what is a decorative function that they can't change. And so, you know, so be it, let's not count that against the square footage. Now, having concluded that, you then say, all right, now there's a chimney right next to that turret. And the reason it's so high, isn't it because it needs to be, it needs to have a certain amount of clearance away from the turret and above the roof line in order to meet code. So they couldn't just shorten the chimney, isn't that correct, and meet code? Mr. Emeril, yes, to place a chimney in that location according to our building official would require it to be of about that height. So therefore my question is rather than a special privilege, wouldn't this be a special circumstance because of its turret and because of its location, because of its historical nature that that is not a special privilege. It's a reason for a variance. I mean, is that a question? Corrected me before and all these things. So I hope that you can clarify before I get myself into much trouble. Okay, well, I think I can build on that just a little bit. The distinction between the two variance requests that you are referencing there is that the floor area methodology and the granting of that would allow the applicant to do development in addition to the home while preserving some of the significant features. So there's a direct tie to preservation to that request, which is sort of critical to these variance requests. Whereas with the chimney, that's not in direct sense of any kind of preservational constraint in the sense that it's not enhancing or preserving what is already there to our understanding there was never a chimney like that. So it was considered conjectural. Though I will just add since it was brought up during the previous meeting by the architect and applicant that on queen hand homes, they would at times have chimneys like this. So and if he does want a chimney in that location though, he would have to make it that high. To comply with building code, that is correct. All right, and then your rationale for denial is because he doesn't need to have it in that location and it's not historical to that particular building. Therefore, it's a special privilege. All right, that answers my question. Thank you very much. Any other questions to ask? Yeah, I have one. In fact, Sean, you touched on it with the idea of this, you know, queen and a neoclassical Victorian home. And so I went online and I probably looked at a hundred different pictures of queen and type Victorian homes. And I would say about one third of them has this tall chimney. And so it strikes me that that's an historical feature that it currently doesn't exist, but it adds to the historical nature of the design of the house. So in that regard, you know, I think it adds to that particular quality of the overall home and being historical. I will jump in here. I think once we go through a public hearing and open that discussion, if there's more questions, the Planning Commission definitely has the ability to amend our findings and change the recommendation there. So or to make different findings for the variants. If in support of the chimney. But yes, I think Sean has adequately explained staff position, but I'm hearing other perspective and your perspective is ultimately the decision maker perspective. And in your mode, if there was a motion at the end to modify to go to take a different route than staff's recommendation, then we would ask for those findings for the variants from the Planning Commission. Thank you. Yeah, I'm sorry if I started down the deliberation path, but I thought my question had sort of a question he sends to it. Are there any other questions of that? Okay, if not, then we can move on to public comment. Katie, do we have public comment? Yeah, we have the Applicants Architect, Co-Britain and also John Gleana. So Sean, if you can allow one of them to speak. Given that permission to be architect, I believe he's available. This is Co-Britain here, Matt's and Brittnock Architects representing Sam Abbey. I'm not gonna speak a lot. I support the staff report, except we part ways regarding the chimney. In regards to special privilege as noted just down the street, there is a chimney that exceeds the maximum height limit. So it's not a special privilege for our chimney to exceed the height limit. It's just the question that this one has to be higher than the one that's down the street. So it's not a special privilege. It's just a degree of that the height has to be taller on this one due to the existing height of the existing structure. Other than that, I'm available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brittn. Anyone else? Next we have John Gleana. Mr. Gleana, are you on mute? Hello. There you go. We can hear you. Okay. Well, I don't know. I sent a letter to the commission. I don't know if everybody got to read it. You know, I have some concerns. I live right behind the property. I don't know of anybody thought about the deck concerns, but that I, you know, I'm concerned, obviously, because it'll block my ocean view that second story bedroom. But I also was thinking with that second floor. Apologies for that. I accidentally removed submissions from the wrong person. Oh, there's a, I would like to see that the deck in the bedroom, the flip flopped on the on the second floor and another reason I elicit my reasons in my letter, but also the, there's a driveway that runs, you know, along this South side that would be a buffer for the neighbors because the current deck where the deck is now on the North side is going to be, there's no buffer. There's just right, it's a large deck it could be used for entertaining and make them, you know, a lot of noise for the neighbors. And that one is, you know, right next to the next door neighbor where on the other side is a driveway that would buffer it. And the deck, I would be happier if the deck was on that side of the house, on the South side of the house instead of on the North side of the house. And there was also other benefits that I listed before, like it's under the tree, it's cold and dark and damp as it's in the shade of the structure in the tree for the other side would be a more pleasant deck for the owners. And they may have an ocean view themselves from that deck. So I was hoping, you know, that the second floor decks has been an issue and like I said, that the buffer from the driveway may make that deck be more private, a better privacy protection for the neighbors. And also concerned about the size of the structure. I mean, I know that the staff's approving the variance, but I mean, when you buy a house and you know that there's square footage and you buy a historic structure, you know that there's gonna be square footage issues. And I don't know that I kind of disagree with giving the variance for the square footage. Because the structure is already large, very large. And you know, it'd be probably excessively large with that variance approval. You're doing it. Okay. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Gleanham. Katie or Sean, is there anybody else? Is no one else with their hand raised on whom? I'm gonna check public comment email and if there are no new emails in public comment. Okay, we've heard from the public. Let's move into planning commission deliberation. Does anybody, any commissioner wanna start out on this one? I'll start if you want. Mr. Gleanham. Well, I think that the architect has done an exceptionally nice job on this project. I think that preserving this type of historical home in Capitola is extremely important. And for me, I have no problem granting them the variance for the height for the second story addition or for the floor area calculation. I'm even leaning toward saying that we should grant them the variance for the chimney because when you look at the drawings in the house itself, the chimney does fit in with the style of the house and the work they're doing to preserve this historic structure. So I'm probably leaning to give them all of those variances. I'm glad to see staff put in a condition regarding the fireplace in the ADU unit because I do believe that that would be a problem for the neighbor who lives behind. So those are my comments right now. Thank you, commissioner Wefman. Anyone else? I'll go. Go ahead. I'll go to the other ones too. We actually encourage the variance for the floor area at the other meeting. So they just basically did what we had suggested at that time. So I don't have a problem with that. It is a nice project. I like pretty much everything about the project except I'm not persuaded regarding the chimney and I'll support, I would support the staff recommendation with regard to the height of the one chimney. Commissioner Christensen. I, yes, I agree with Mr. Wefman. I would support the variance for the chimney height just for the sheer fact that it will, we can't have a wood burning chimney without it being that height. So when we would be depriving them of a historical, historically accurate feature in their home. And yes, I agree with everything else. I think that the house is really nicely done. I like what they've done with the porch and that they've made considerations for the neighbors with the ADU in the rear. So I support all the variances that staff has listed with the addition of the chimney variance for the height. All right, let me also chime in. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Roos, did you want to? Did you want to? I would concur with Commissioner Westman and Commissioner Christensen. I think that chimney deserves the variance because I believe it's an important historical feature just like the turret is. All right. Let me agree with the, excuse me, that sentiment. Let me just be sympathetic a little bit to Mr. Galena, the neighbor. I started out being reticent to allow the variance for added square footage as well. But as Commissioner Newman pointed out, we've kind of encouraged the variance for the turret. And so once you take that out, then the square footage is within the requirement. Now there's no variance needed for the square footage once we give them, once we admit that the turret area is something that we insist on. So I also looked at the chimney and said, you know, if they don't have the chimney there, they'd have to redesign the whole thing because that is their family room, their main entrance. You come in, you have this Victorian Queen House, you have a big fireplace. And, you know, I think that is a feature that the applicant deserves to put in. And as long as he's consistent with the design of a Queen Anne House, I also agree that high variance of the chimney is not a special privilege. And that I would also agree with the rest of you, or most of the rest of you about allowing that variance as well. So having said my piece, does anybody wish to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve all staff recommendations except, how do I word this, to include the chimney height within the variances. It's not a grant of special privilege. Thank you. Somebody help. We have a motion, do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion from Commissioner Christian and a second from Commissioner Root. And a further discussion. Alrighty, let's take a vote. Louie, can we have our old call? Hi. No. My wife's name. Hi. Hi, motion passes. Twice now we have not been, and we haven't been here, that's kind of unusual, but we're getting, making some progress here. So 106 Cliff Avenue passes. Congratulations, Mr. Abbey. And good luck with your project. Do we have, let's see, that's all we have on our public hearings agenda. Can we move that on to the director's report? Yes. Thank you, Chair Wilk, commission. I just wanted to report back that the city council on April 28th reviewed the temporary outdoor dining that was due to expire on May 31st. I had reported at our last meeting that we've run into a couple items of the coastal commission regarding the permanent program for outdoor dining or the semi-permanent program for outdoor dining. And at this point, the city council has extended the temporary program, but with additional requirements. So they've required a maintenance deposit for each outdoor dining space of $500 and staff will be able to initiate citations. And if a restaurant to please all their funds, then their outdoor dining would have to be removed. We've also required that all the public benches be removed and they'll be returned along the Esplanade for more public seating. We're requiring just more maintenance, replanting plants, refreshing planters, putting planters every five feet because we're removing the benches. And also we're requiring, we're charging a fee for the lease of the space. So the city council originally was looking at the rates that we were suggesting for the permanent program, but that through discussions and public comment that the meeting that's been decreased to $200 per space. So we're right now, we've sent out a letter to all participating restaurants and they have to respond by next Monday on whether or not they'd like to continue. And so that's currently one of the items that we're working on. The other is we're doing, we've reached out to all the restaurants in the village to get comment back on our prototype design if we wanna reach here their comments before we bring back the coastal development permit. So thank you for your comments early, couple of months back. And now we'll be working with the restaurants and once we have a certified ordinance, the temporary outdoor dining will expire two months after. And at that point, we'll be bringing forward the coastal, the blanket coastal development permit for the prototype design. So that's your update on outdoor dining. And I did reach out to the county regarding the Kaiser project. I've not heard a response. So if I hear any, when I do hear something from the county, I will update you all. But that is the director's report for this evening. Danny, I have a question regarding the, you mentioned the benches being removed. How does that relate to the outdoor dining? So when we initially started the temporary outdoor dining, we never imagined that we'd be two and a half years later, where, you know, or two years later where we are today. So we had put in benches kind of a safeguard along the street, the street edge. Those benches. Okay. Those benches. Okay. So we'll be removing those and they need to provide their own planters. We've had a lot of public comments on, please bring back our benches. People love to sit on the flanat and look out at the ocean. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So that is the director's report item number seven, our commission's communication. Anybody wish to make any last minute comments? Yes, I do. Mr. Newman. I just wanted to inquire and I don't necessarily need an answer tonight, maybe at the next meeting, as to the status of the compliance with the vacation rental and vacation rental tax requirements. There was a time when there are a lot of vacation rentals that just advertised with signs in the window and so forth. And they're kind of off the record to some extent. I don't, we were looking at various options to make sure that people are complying. And I would like an update on that if possible. I'm happy to answer that now. And if you'd like more details, I can provide more details on the success of the project. But we hired an outside consultant, HDL, who is now tracking all of the online platforms regarding nightly rental. And then they're initiating all code enforcement tied to nightly rental. So we have hired an outside consultant. As they're observing if any illegal nightly rentals, they're supposed to be sending out compliance letters and bringing people into compliance. This only began, I want to say, Sean actually has been very involved in this effort. And Sean, I believe that the actual initiation of this platform through HDL, tracking it was initiated just in 2022. So it's relatively new. And, but I'd be happy to check in actually finance is managing the overall system. And if you'd like, we can bring you back some statistics. Well, so the concern I have with that is that it's sort of a cat and mouse game. And when it becomes known that we are looking at the online platforms, then people instead of using those platforms use just window advertisement. And I'm wondering if there is a lot of non-compliance that isn't reflected in the online platforms. That is a very good observation. And it's something that I'll bring to our staff for everyone to keep eyes on. Because if there are any signs outside of the vacation rental, it's our duty to bring those forward. So I can put out a message to public works as well as our planning and building staff to keep an eye out for signs that are not in vacation rental. But they're not doing like drive-by analysis. So that definitely would be missed. Well, I mean, also the ones that are in the vacation rental district but are not reporting. I'll second on that and report back. Thank you. All right, any other commission communication? Now I guess we'll move on to item number eight, which is adjournment. This meeting is adjourned. See you next time. Good night, everyone. Good night, everyone. Bye.