 Recording in progress start over. Hello and welcome to the capital of planning commission meeting This meeting is open to the public with in-person attendance in the city of Capitola Council chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue and can be watched remotely. Please note that public comment is available for in-person speakers only. Planning Commission and staff are attending in person and remotely via zoom. There are several ways for the public to watch the meeting remotely. Information on how to watch the meeting via zoom is available on our website cityofcapitola.org on the planning commission meeting agenda. The public can also live stream the meeting on the city's website or on YouTube. As always this meeting is cable cast live on spectrum communications cable TV channel 8 and AT&T UBIRST channel 99 and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Mondays and Fridays at 1pm on spectrum channel 71 and spectrum channel 25. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the city's website after this meeting. Our technician tonight is Walter and as a reminder please turn off your cell phones during the meeting. And it's my understanding that our new policy is that oral communications is in person but when we have applications people can comment on via zoom. Our policy is that public communications make public comment on any applications. You need to be in person for that. However if we have a presenter working for an applicant they can present via zoom. Thank you for that. All right now we will move on to roll call and then the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Estee. Present. Commissioner Jensen. Present. Commissioner Wilk. Here. Vice Chair Christensen. Here. And Chair Westman. Here. And so the next item is new business and we need to nominate a new chairperson or like to make a. I would like to nominate Court Christensen or chair. Second. Hi. Hi. Passes unanimously. So Court King and I will now. Thank you. So moving on. We're going to move into additions and deletions. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you so much. Do we have any nominations for Vice Chair? I would like to nominate Jerry Jensen. I'll second. Are there any other nominations? Do we have any other nominations for Vice Chair? So Jerry is our Vice Chair. Thank you. We have an old call vote. Commissioner Estee. Commissioner Jensen. Hi. Commissioner Wilk. Hi. Vice Chair Westman. Hi. And Chair Christensen. All right. So additions and deletions to the agenda. We did have one addition to the to the agenda. There was an added item emailed into us this morning and it was updated in the packet. It's for 417 capital turning radius diagram. Thank you. Hi. My name is Goron Clapic. I'm a resident of Santa Cruz County. There's a problem at a Jet Street Park in Capitola. That's vandalism and also there are gang sites that are posted sometimes in a man's restroom. I don't know how it is in the women's restroom because I never go in there, but what I'm saying is I've been talking about the Urdu Area, I've been talking about that for a while, that something must be done about that. I don't know what the solution is for it, but I'm just letting you know, I have to use the restroom there to do the number one or number two, not for vandalism reasons or anything else. And that's all I want to say. Thank you very much for listening. Have a blessed day. Bye-bye. Thank you. Is there anybody else that'd like to speak? Do we have any planning commission staff comments? Yes, thank you. I'd like to say a few things. One is like to commend staff on a couple of issues. One is the tree giveaway. That was an item which I initially opposed because I didn't think it would be a success and the environmental commission budget is very thin. It turns out it was a smashing success that there were a hundred trees. They were all given away. You can elaborate on that if you want, Katie, but I think that was great and you need to be commended on that. The second one is the tree replacement program. And yeah, Erica Sinek gave me feedback on both these items. The tree replacement program has to do with how the fact that we've been, the city has been pulling down a lot of trees. You may recall the canary pines that were at base of the wharf and initially we thought that maybe those were gonna be replaced with palm trees, although we go back and review the minutes. Never committed to that actually, but also there was a bunch of trees that were pulled down in the upper parking lot for the pedestrian walkway. So the question became, well, what are we gonna do about that? What happened to our canopy and our supposedly love of trees? Well, it turns out that there is a plan and they got George McMenaman, who's our environmentalist involved, which is just the right guy and he's picking out the trees and picking out the location. So it looks like that's another thing that's gonna be a runaway success. So kudos for you guys for working on those two things. My third comment is not as complimentary. I'm getting to worry about the comments and conditions that are being imposed on applicants by staff. I always look at the conditions and review the meetings that were held before it comes before planning commission. And I sometimes, I think it happened in this case as well, is I sometimes question the degree to which staff pushes the applicants to move in a particular direction without being involved. So again, I encourage the other planning commissioners to look at the conditions and see if they were really all are required. Beyond that, that's it, thank you. Oh, I wanna just say happy new year and I appreciate the opportunity to serve with you guys for another year. Any staff comments? I have a comment, sorry. Well, just two things, three things. First of all, I just wanted to thank Susan for her leadership as chair last year. I appreciate the insight she gave me as a first year planning commissioner. And the next thing was with the storm damage we had the recent right after the first year. I just wanna thank Commissioner Astley for coming down and doing a lot of volunteer work and doing cleanup down there. So I really appreciate that. I know the community does. And then just following up to Commissioner Wilk's comment regarding some of the comments that you referred to. I know we approached the topic quarter three last year a little bit about maybe how the, I think, architectural review maybe could be brought back or some phase of that and some kind of, if it has to be modified or somewhat. So I think just to bring that back up again, maybe we can look at that as a discussion period sometime this beginning this year to maybe address some of those things and some of my comments that I've had in the past. It'll be an interesting discussion, I think. So I'm sort of wondering if the time has come for us to have some sort of planning commission workshop or to talk about some of the issues that have come up like the architectural and site review committee and how questions about conditions, how applications are processed and just have a time. It could be on the third Thursday when we normally don't meet, we could do it some other time that works for people. But it seems like there does seem to be some confusion over what's an appropriate condition, why do we have them, what's going on in planning itself? And I don't know if other people are interested in doing that, but I think it might be good for us to have some time to talk about some of those issues, not under the restrictions of doing it on a meeting. Maybe I see it all on the same page. Yeah. And even if we don't get on the same page, we understand what the zoning origin is about. I think it's a great idea. Any other commissioner comments before I respond? So at our next planning commission meeting, we actually have no item scheduled. I think your mic's off. The other item is a meeting with the state on Monday. So there's a chance that the housing element may be on that meeting, but I'd be happy to, I think the first step is to bring it to a planning commission meeting, hear what items you'd like to discuss, and that's what we can do at the next meeting, is I can collect exactly what topics you'd like to discuss, and then I'll come back with a staff report that gives a brief intro to each item and where it is in the code, and then we could have a really thoughtful discussion. But to make sure I know exactly what you'd like to discuss before we schedule it. So in summary, I may be requesting so we've got our next meeting is scheduled for I think it's February 1st, is our next regular agenda meeting. Depending on my meeting on Monday, I might be asking for a special meeting in February, depending on like timing and requirements for public noticing, but I will definitely, whichever meeting we do meet on, let's take that next step of everyone coming to that meeting prepared to ask for certain items to discuss, and then we'll put it on an agenda for discussion. We see that we could take it upon ourselves, you know, in the next two or three days to then do a list of items that we wanna talk about it. So if the February 1st meeting turns out, we're not gonna spend time on the housing element, you know, that would give us time to, you know, talk about some of these things at that meeting. That works as well. That's great. Okay, so send me your items that you'd like to discuss and we'll make it happen for the February meeting. All right, so we could get our items to you by next Tuesday, we have to have a deadline or we'll never get it done. Yeah, but the packet, let me just look at a calendar really quick. Or we can get them by Sunday. I'm just, so the packet would go out next Friday for the February 1st meeting. So let's say by Monday morning at nine o'clock. Yeah, some time on Monday, okay? And so this would be like a work study, kind of going over our ideas and essentially how those could work in the future. So if there were certain items like the daylight plane between a residential neighbor, you don't think the standard works, that's something to just say, Katie, I'd like to discuss the daylight plane and I'll just make sure to have that ready and then we can identify, can give a little intro of what the standard is and then we can open it for discussion of what's not working and then. No, that we definitely wanna talk about. Design review and the architectural insight. Thank you. Is that it for staff comment? That's it, I'll have a director's report at the end of the evening. So moving on to public hearings. Public hearings are intended to provide an opportunity for public discussion of each item listed as a public hearing. The following procedure is as follows. First is staff presentation. Second is planning commission questions. Third is public comment. Fourth is planning commission deliberation and fifth is decision. First item is 605 Escalona Drive. It's a project is a design permit for a first and second story additions with a variance of the side yard setback on an existing single family residence located in the R1 single family residential zoning district. This project is in the coastal zone and requires a coastal development permit which is appealable to the California coastal commission after all possible appeals are exhausted through the city. Recommended action is either approve the application as proposed or provide direction on reducing the rear massing and continue the application to a future meeting. Is that applicant or do we have a staff presentation? We do, I'm getting that up right now. Thank you. Chair Christensen and planning commission. As stated already, I'll send me back to the beginning. As mentioned, this is for 605 Escalona Drive. Entitlements include a design permit, coastal development permit and a variance and this is located in the R1 zoning district. This is the site as it appears today. Proposed site plan. This project includes predominantly second story additions but as well rear round level additions that result in a 2,896 square foot home. This is the front and northeast side elevations. This project recreates the architectural theme of this home in a cottage style. The cottage architecture is a common, commonly found type of residents found in Capitola. That this project incorporates many features found in cottage architecture including shingle and shingle board siding, board and batten siding, steeply pitched roofs, exposed rafters and all of those are highlighted in the front porch. These are the rear, I should say rear and southwest side elevations. And right here you can see the, in blue, a second story deck on the bottom slide or in the bottom elevation. This meets all of the recently adopted upper floor deck development standards that were passed and it includes a five and a half foot privacy wall against the most proximal residents. One of the concerns that came up from staff and raised some questions was the overall massing of the rear renovations and expansion. We note this in the staff report that the single story portion of the rear has a steep roof that's equal in height to the second story additions in front. The resulting upper mass itself is greater than a one story structure but less than a second story structure which is what we were trying to illustrate on that image to the right. In blue you could see what might be the overall massing if this were a true story with the same footprint. As however, the internal height does not exceed 16 feet, this area is not double counted for floor as we would typically do if it was and just an incompletely vaulted ceiling. If the planning commission finds that the rear massing is inconsistent with the design review criteria, they could provide direction to the applicant and continue the item regarding the variance. The variance is tied to the nonconformity which is a garage wall that encroaches about eight inches into the required side setback. The alterations to nonconforming structures are typically limited to 80% of the fair market value. Under review of this project, it was found that the sizable additions and renovations of the home exceeded that threshold which would require the applicant either correct the nonconformities or request of variance. The granting of a variance in this case would enable the applicant to build the full scope of the project while keeping the nonconforming wall. We have a couple of images to show you here of aerials to see some of the characteristics of this block in particular. Unlike the more typical north side of Escolona Drive, properties on the south side of the street have an irregular alignment with the street that creates a triangular front setback with homes further from the street on one side. The angled front lot line limits development potential along the front and modestly increases the average lot width which in turn imposes a slightly wider required side setback. The impact this has on development here can be clearly observed by comparing both sides of the street where you can see there's a triangular space in between the footprints of homes today on one side whereas you have a more standard rectangular space on the north side. Additionally, the Depot Hill neighborhood used to be zoned as multifamily when the city was incorporated. 1979, which was after this home in particular was constructed, the neighborhood was re-zoned to R1 which altered the allowed uses and development standards for the entire neighborhood. There are many structures in the Depot Hill neighborhood with nonconforming setbacks due to this 1979 zone change. And here we have again a similar aerial. We were able to make findings in support of granting of variants including that the variants would not constitute a special privilege. This aerial reflects our analysis of finding properties nearby that also have substandard side setbacks. And this is kind of stopped here. We could have probably found more to the west. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission either approve the project as proposed and conditioned or if there are issues found with the overall massing that they provide direction to the applicant on how to reduce that massing and continue the application to the next hearing. You please explain the privacy wall requirements that you requested. We requested that the applicant raise the height, I believe from five feet to five and a half feet. This is a wall in between the upper floor deck and a neighboring property. The deck is set away from that side property, but it's the closest thing it has to a side face. And staff felt that raising that privacy wall to five and a half feet would better screen it from visibility that half foot would make a noticeable difference, in other words. So after discussing this with the applicant, they did modify the plans. Can you reference something in the code regarding that privacy? A privacy deck is called for on the side in our code, but I'm not, I don't believe it. It specifies an exact height. Was it a request of a neighbor or was it just staff advising the applicant? A staff recommendation. I'm looking up the, I'll look up the Munich code right now. When we came up with talking about regulation, how the decks were able to discuss this, do you remember us saying that in certain circumstances that a privacy wall would be required, but I don't think we specify the exact materials or height. Yeah, I remember it being privacy screening. Yeah, so just having it be a solid wall, is that? So it says one of the criteria is for a second story deck in balcony. It says a permanent privacy screen. For example, opaque glass is required for the rear deck, for a rear deck along the railing parallel to the interior side property line facing a single family wall. There is no specific height requirement. And the application came in at five feet. I guess, I don't know if you agree, but are they, are they, did they elect to do that? Do they want to do that? I mean, I guess we could. The applicant, I believe the owners are here today and I could speak for themselves, but they did do it upon the recommendation of staff. I do want to make it, just put a note out too, that the applicant stated that they had been speaking with their neighbor and that neighbor actually did independently later on reach out to staff and say that they did not have an issue with the proposed project. Were there any other neighbors comments or anything about the project at all? No, just the property on the corner. No comments from, I think it's 207 Sacramento. No, we haven't, wait, the one on the corner? No, the, not on the corner on Sacramento. No, we haven't received comments from any other property. We're going to open up the public comment. Does the applicant available? Do you like to? Good evening, my name's Frank McCosey. I'm the owner, my wife and I, Jennifer, of 605 Escalona. Came prepared today to advocate mostly in favor of varying, necessarily need to belabor the point. There's no need for convincing. My home designer can speak, Valerie Moore eloquently on the massing issue. As far as the deck is concerned, we were mostly disappointed with the size restrictions of the deck, but understand that those were recent, recently approved or passed. So the privacy screen, we don't necessarily, we're not, wouldn't do that if we didn't have to, but it wasn't a major impediment to us. It's not the hill, but we were gonna die on the variance, however it is. So we really did work hard to advocate for that, which was included in the material that we sent. Again, I don't want to belabor that point. I guess the only couple of comments I will say on regarding the variance, I really do want to thank my neighbors that I've spoken with about the project, none of which have had any objections to it, and they've been supportive. And I'd also like to thank the staff for what I read, specifically the research they did on the similar properties with substandard side setbacks. I was prepared this weekend to go out with my tape measure, but I saw that on Friday, the staff reported kind of done that work for me, so I'm really glad I didn't have to kind of intrude on anyone else. And I think as far as the variance is concerned, ultimately I'd summarize it as I really don't think, I think the only reason not to approve the variance in this situation would be bureaucratic. And I don't, again, it's an existing wall. I'm not, we're not putting anything up. That's not already there. I don't really think it gives us any advantages for the reasons explained. And so I think it would just be to draw a hard line and say variances are only reserved for very special situations that I understand that, and I understand the importance of setting precedent when you're talking about variances. But to that end, because it is such a modest exemption, our opinion, I do think that it would set a difficult precedent if you were not to approve the variance because then I think it sets up for the future a very tough bar to clear. That's humbled by his opinion. Yeah, that's all we have to say. I guess the project, I'll speak, I guess the project as a whole. Really look forward to, I think, building a home worthy of the neighborhood. And of a lot that size, I've been trying to get into this neighborhood. It's not great to be here. I've lived in the East Side of San Diego for my whole life, so I'm very familiar as my neighbors or our neighbors support would show, I think that the proposal is a positive for the property. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on the band? If you could write down your name and speak into the microphone. Should I write Frank's down too? Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. I forgot to mention it. Thank you. And then speaking directly into the microphone makes the sound guy really. I'm a little nervous. Valerie Hart did the design for this project. And when it comes to the rear massing it was not brought up during the design development review. I made sure that we stayed under the 16 foot high limit within the house so that we didn't double the square footage. I also tried to stay in the character of the neighborhood make something charming and that fits in with the style. It's in the rear. There are no complaints from any or comments from any of the neighbors. Only positive feedback. So if we had to change the slope to bring down the massing in the back it would affect the front elevation and pretty much everything on the project. I did try to do that at one point when we were trying to reduce the overall height inside. Instead we went with the pre-manufactured represses and that achieved our desired end. So I couldn't make the design look correct by bringing the pitch down in the back and bringing the massing down. That's, I think that's it. I do appreciate all the work that Sean put into supporting the variants. It was very important to Frank and Jennifer. So I think that's it. I'd answer questions if that was allowed but maybe later. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. I do wanna say that the new debt code is a little confusing and I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Anybody else? Good evening commissioners. It's great to see some familiar faces and staff. It's been a while, a few years but I just wanna come, my wife and I wanna come and support the project Frank and Jenny are doing. It's great to have a family up in our neighborhood. It's mostly old people and vacation homes these days. So it's nice to see a family with kids moving to our neighborhood. But I wanted to just give some support and thank to staff for recognizing one that this project is legal non conforming. This setback issue is something that the city created back in 79, it looks like. So not an issue that Frank and Jenny created. Also, they point out that the variance doesn't grant a special privilege. In contrary, it would deny them privileges the other residents on Depot have by not granting this variance. So I know there's been some time on that side the variance word always makes you look very closely at the project, which it should but in this case, it seems like it's really negligent. So I hope you can look past that and support the project. And on the topic of massing, it's nice. And it turns out the Valerie does nice work and she also was designed on part of my house. So I may be biased there, but the massing obviously is in the rear and none of the neighbors is not gonna affect anybody negatively having that massing back there. But obviously allows them to have a house that's gonna support their family over the next number of years. And I was talking with the neighbor on the corner today because as you know, he's doing an ADU or you may not know, but, and he's trying to get some work done. So I was talking with him and I know he is expressed his support for the project. So I don't, I haven't heard anything negative from any of our neighbors in the neighborhood. And then just as a side note, I heard you talking about Arkinsite and some of the staff comments. And when I had my time on the planning commission, we had an actual Arkinsite that had third party people on it. And I would really hope that you look closely and going back to that. I think it adds a lot for the community members is a little more insight. I know staff is diligent at what they do, but maybe have sometimes have a different perspective than some of our community members at the work in the area. So with that, I hope you support the project tonight and it's great to you guys. Have a good night. Thank you very much. Okay, so with that, we're gonna, is anybody else? With that, we're gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to deliberation questions. I always have to be the first, but I'm happy to have been. Yes. Okay, so I don't have a problem with the variants, but with regards to the staff requirements and whatnot, I got hung up on the landscape plan actually. My understanding was, and the applicant can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that initially, they were going to leave the landscape pretty much untouched. Then staff came in and said, well, you really need a landscape plan and let's go in and fix it up a bit. Not exactly sure what the words were, but my understanding, when I discuss this a long time ago with you, Katie, my understanding of the need for a landscape plan is there are real reasons in terms of safety and sewage pipes and things that can, if you plant the wrong plants, can really damage the community or create all kinds of issues, but it shouldn't be one of aesthetics in my opinion. And so I guess my question is to the applicant, would they just assume, and I'm looking at the picture of the front yard, it looks fine to me. I just wondered if the applicant would just assume leave the landscape alone and just if we were to eliminate the need for a landscape plan, would they appreciate that? Yeah, let's go ahead. I don't need to sign in again. No, no. Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. Similar to privacy deck issue, the landscape plan, we were hoping not to have to have one was not a major deal, but the biggest reason was we are trying to put everything we have into building kind of the finished article of our house as far as what needs to be permitted and such, because as you can imagine, it costs a lot to acquire the property and we bought it in 2022. And building costs are as high as they've ever been. And so we were hoping to, yeah, I mean, the scope of the project, as you can see is it's sizable and it kind of takes everything we have to get to that point so that we can do this remodel once and not have to do another remodel five, 10 years down the road. So we're kind of stretched a little bit. I think I explained a little bit in the variance application as well. But yeah, if we had our druthers, we would have liked to leave the landscape alone. We intend to have a landscape plan, but that was something we could afford to let go a few years later. I do want to express my appreciation for you investing in our community. Thank you. I'll go next. We'll just go down the line. I think this is a wonderful project. I really like the design of the house. I don't have any problem with the variance and I agree that the massing is on the back of the house and the back of this house really is not going to impact anyone in the neighborhood. So I don't have a problem with that. I do disagree with Commissioner Wilkes. Having had a husband who was in the construction business, I've never seen a remodel of this significance take place on a piece of property and have the landscaping look like it looks today when they're done with the project. So I have, I mean, I have no expectation that the plants that are there are going to still be there when this project is finished. You know, I'm fine with them trying to incorporate in their landscape plan, reusing some of the existing plants that are there trees. But I do think it's important for the community and for the neighborhood for there to be a landscape plan. So when you get to the end of the project, everyone knows what's expected. There isn't confusion at the end of the project. We thought you were going to do this or do that or, you know, at least do some landscaping. So other than that, I think it's a great project and a nice design and it is nice to have families, young families move into Capitola. I live in a different neighborhood and we've become a neighborhood of old people as well. And so it's nice to see those things happening and those are my comments. I have a couple of comments. I agree with everybody in this variance thing we should not be penalizing somebody for a rule change made 45 years ago. It just doesn't make sense, especially six inches that will cost them a fortune to do. But I do, on this project in particular, I really struggled with the massing problem. My first reaction was, you know, that back end section of houses is a cathedral and the guy, the people at 208 Sacramento looking east would be looking at that every day and going, that's awfully high. And Valerie, maybe I could ask you to step up again and go through your rationale on why you, I know you did the 12 to 12 or one to one pitch to match the front, but you could have a discontinuity and you couldn't make the back lower, four and a half to 12 like you have on the other parts of the second story. And it seems like that would work. I understand that it may seem like it would work, but when you draw it out, it ends up looking like this with a weird, it just doesn't play out that way when you're drawing it. If you look at your, go to the Northwest Elation View, John, or whoever's got control. So you've got the 12 and 12 pitch is actually fairly narrow on that front second story, right? It's like a foot wide, so to speak. It's okay. And not that age, the reason I'm pushing this is massing sets of precedent, right? It's not just nobody cares about this project, but you say, oh, we can have this massive structure and then next month or the month after somebody else comes in with something like this, we're going to struggle. That's my number one topic for our discussion about how do we interpret this design? Does this succeed far requirements or height requirements? Does it succeed? Because massing is all subjective, you know? This is why it drives me nuts as an engineer. But how are we supposed to? I, you know, I've never had the philosophy just because I think Capitola is made up of all sorts of unique buildings, you know? There really is no style in the fact that somebody does something on one lot doesn't set a precedent that that should happen all over town. That's why we have design review when we look at them individually. True enough that people will bring it up. Well, you allowed it here. Why am I being held accountable for that? That's what worries me. We don't have code to inhibit that type of. Well, we have all sorts of codes on heights and widths and side separate, you know, side setbacks, front setbacks, all that kind of stuff. We don't have a rule that says when I look at this thing, that lower view, if I look at that, that occupies 100% of the view that she's drawn there. That's a massive, you know, you could interpret that as a massive structure. Well, it's steeply moving away from the neighboring property. They didn't seem to have any issue. No. And it's in the rear. So it's not like there's some gross massing in the front. It's just continuing. So what I'm... What you're looking at is on the front, on the front, which is the right hand side of the Northeast elevation. That is not required for the bedroom itself, right? It's just a roofing architect, artifact. So you could drop... That's the bedroom. No, not the front two feet where it's 12 by 12 and 12 is not actually part of the house. It just extends out. You're talking about the porch, the covered porch. It's above the porch, yes. That whole thing could be redone at a lower pitch, my opinion. Well, then that back part would have to be. That's correct. That's what I'm saying. But that takes the charm away from the building. I just don't know how we as a body can make her. No, I'm just, I'm trying to go through you. I'm trying to understand your rationale because again, massing is, I think, an issue that comes in front of this committee a lot. And if you're saying, if you say I tried it and I tried to demass it and I couldn't do it. I did try to demass it in the back. I think there's no problem in the front and I don't really think there's a problem in the back but I understand your concern. But I did try and it looked weird. It looked like there was a little hat on the back that didn't fit with anything else. It didn't go with it. It looked bad. I wouldn't, I couldn't do it. Isn't there a cathedral on Escalona? Yeah, there's an actual cathedral. There's a church down the street and across the street there are two properties with the similar, similar pitch. Yeah, they look very similar to this. So that parts, it fits in. I'm just exploring what are the, you know. What was my thought process? Yeah. Why did it look cute? Thank you. Okay. That's it. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Valley. My comment goes back to the privacy screening issue. Oh, I think like Commissioner Estee says or stated, you know, about setting presidents and going forward. And it seems like a lot of these projects we look in the first thing, if somebody's asking for a variance or a comment says the neighbor next door, the house next door, we all refer back to. So I'm just wondering if there isn't a requirement for privacy screening and then we're subjecting out, are we gonna establish it at five, six? Now that's the new height or is it five or what? It just seems like I'm just concerned about it being said, as a president's going forward, you know, if the next one is good to go to six or as they go back to five. I understand the need for privacy screening, but what, I mean, if they're tall people, five, six doesn't really do anything. Well, I think, I mean, I remember in past meetings, when people come in with a second story deck that a neighbor had a problem with, you know, privacy, that was used as a, you know, a solution. And so bringing that in as a factor of, you know, a consideration, it being in the code made it a lot easier to implement and to create that solution. I just, I think I have a problem with it used as a standard because I mean, he has such a small deck. Having it, if there's especially the neighbors don't have a problem with it, I feel like it shouldn't be forced upon somebody, you know, they don't have to have a screening if it doesn't propose a problem, you know? I just. But what Katie read with what we adopted was that if it was facing an adjacent property, then you're supposed to have a screening. And that, I think that that was, that's appropriate. And that's what's in our code, but having it, I mean, I think we've removed it on a couple of projects. Am I right? My memory. I just remember commenting on it with you before and we removed it just because they didn't. I know I've been the advocate for second story freedom as opposed to worrying about the neighbor so much. So, but I tend to be in a minority. Could I say something really quick? I'm sorry. To your comment, the decks are now restricted to how close they are to their neighbors as well. So before the deck would be closer perhaps. Now it has to be 10 feet away. So you have that differential for the height. If you're gonna try to find a standard, which if you're gonna have it in the code, you probably should because otherwise you're gonna have people like me asking how high does it need to be? I also, that deck with the limited space that's allowed now with six feet out and then that 10 foot set back, just a little tiny thing, having this tall wall, you kind of feel like you can open the door, you can come out and you stay on there and then you go back in. I mean, and you're, you're got this for me. I mean, it's smaller than me. Here's five foot six. Yeah. So in your original design, you had it at five. Did? And what was the logic behind that? I was trying to pick a height. And I asked Sean to, and he said maybe five. And then we changed it to five, six. There was no really. I was just trying to. Yeah, but from, you know. Were the, I guess, Matt, it was your client wanting privacy, and so they thought five was giving them privacy or, yeah. Our client didn't want a privacy. We wanted a nice big deck. That's what we wanted. So, no privacy. The 42 inch high guard rails. So you're saying if you could, you would have it lower, obviously. If she wants to talk, she needs to go up. Thank you. It's so, thank you. It's me. Why not? Hi guys, I'm Jennifer, free work, Frank's wife and the other owner of 605 Escalona. Yeah, it's just a deck and I would really just defer to what a normal height on a deck should be and what you guys recommend and what our neighbor, right? We care a lot about our neighbors. So what our neighbors would like. Would you prefer railing instead of a wall? Thank you. Yeah, of course. Just railing all the way around. I guess just a follow-up on my comment was just based around, maybe not specific to just this project, but as we looked at these projects, are we establishing subjectively five, six, five, or what is the, and just going forward, what's that look like? I think we have to have it on our list for our discussion. Exactly. You guys can also like just let us know what it should be. Thank you. So, by code, for building code, for safety purposes, the railing has to be at 42 inches and because we don't, you couldn't go below 42 inches for safety reasons, but our code does not specify. So you could be flexible on that standard this evening. So we could give them the ability to have a railing with some type of, not a wall, basically, with a screening, possibly. The code calls out having screening on that side that faces the neighbor. Yeah, on that interior side yard. So the screening should be along that side, but if you wanna drop it down to 42 inches, that's perfectly fine. So I would like to pursue this a little further. So yes, I like the idea of reducing it down to 42 inches and then we can discuss it at our workshop. And until we do, I think we should lean in favor of the applicant. Also, I'd like to go back to the landscaping issue. I'm not worried about saving those particular plants, but I believe that the applicant who is hoping to spend every penny he can on valuable things could leave his landscaping until some other time and we could just trust that they'll put in something that is appropriate as long as it doesn't become safety hazard or violate some other public works issue. So I would recommend those two things and I would make a motion unless we wanna discuss it some more that we A, reduce the privacy screen down to the minimum 42 inches and B, let them implement their landscaping at a later date. I have a proposed a landscape plan. Follow up to that, just Katie, maybe you could elaborate. How does that get into permeable coverage? Like for areas on projects, because if we allow it, no landscape, the project to be finished, we all know that they could just go for concrete across realistically the whole thing and that it doesn't have to be permeable because you don't, I think, need to have a permit to put in concrete. And so that would just be something that I'd be concerned about. Yeah, so stormwater is part of the review of every application we take in and that's due to state law. One thing I would like to say is that we often allow people to get the occupancy of their home without the landscaping done in the front yard. We simply put together a legal agreement that it's going to be finished within a certain amount of time and we have provided, I think, three different options of ensuring that this is done. You could put a lien on your home, you can put in a deposit for a landscape. And we've had, I've extended, there's been many instances in which property owners are wanting to install their own landscape and it takes time. So I can think of multiple projects in which we've extended due to the seasonality and when the appropriate planting times are. But the ultimate goal is when you issue the final certificate of occupancy that the landscape is complete to the plans. And we also modified, I just, go back when we updated our conditions approval at one point after a landscaping, a review of our landscaping standard is that we no longer require the landscape plan to be by a landscape architect. It can be the homeowner is allowed to submit their own landscape plan. It doesn't have to be professionally done by a landscape architect. So we have made few strides in our regulations for landscaping in the design review criteria. There's specific criteria for landscaping listed and also within our landscaping code for the R1 zone, the front yard is required to be landscaped. So, and we loosened that up because in the past you had to do a landscape plan for your whole property but that was modified in the latest, so we mentioned this certificate of occupancy, that landscape has to be completed. Does that mean they can't move in until the landscape is completed? So, no, so what I'm saying, you can get your certificate of occupancy. So if this home were rebuilt in next January, it's everything's done except for the landscaping. We would put together, we've got a legal document that we would just make an agreement. And there's like three different avenues we can take in terms of assurances that the landscaping will be completed but then there are final occupancy. So you can get your temporary occupancy but once we would issue the final occupancy and close out the permit once the landscaping is complete. And it's a part of that that has to be locked in with so-called water, like you can't have grass, right? You have to have big... Yeah, there's a lot of standards and there's multiple agencies involved. So I'm saying if we didn't have a landscaper, it'd be hard for maybe the applicant wouldn't know that they might just think, oh, we'll plant grass and they're not really supposed to be or you're not allowed to plant grass. Thank you. So would you want to modify your motion? Didn't make a motion yet, but I will. I move we approve this application per staff's recommendation with the exception that the side wall, privacy wall, be allowed to be reduced to 42 inches. Do you have one motion? Do you have a second? I'll second. No call. Commissioner Esti. Aye. Commissioner Jensen. Aye. Commissioner Will. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Commissioner Westman. I think it's a one. I forgot the vice chair and chair, which commissioner Westman. I think it's a wonderful project and I look forward to seeing it built. But I do think that, you know, we have a requirement on our code for the privacy wall. And for me, it's never been so much about what the next door neighbor who's living there right now thinks, but it's about how this project is going to, you know, long term that it's going to be there work for both property owners. So I think you're building a lovely home, but I'm sorry I can't vote for it. Chair Christensen. Aye. Oh, sorry. Oh, it's just approved. It's approved. Sorry, that was my first night as chair. Thank you. So your project's approved and thank you very much for all your effort. And good luck. Yeah, good luck. Thank you. Okay, moving on to the next one, next item is item B417 Capitola Avenue. I'll have to recuse myself and share with you. As well. Did we want to do the director's report first and maybe we can just do that. I would, yeah, let's do director's report first so that you can head home. Switching hand. So first, I'd like to remind everyone, I think you've received the e-filing 700 forms from our city clerk and the time is, the clock is ticking on that. So if you could get those completed, that would be wonderful. I did want to share with you, or maybe Sean can pull it up on the city website. Well, under the city website, we recently put a lot of effort in within the building department planning and finance for creating a new webpage for new businesses. And so new businesses can go there. They can learn about the, how to go about getting their business license, also what types of permits are required if it's an intensification of the use. There's details of signs and we've really tried to make it very simple to follow and user friendly. So if you're having a conversation and someone's talking about bringing a business to town, all they need to do is go to on the far right, top right corner of our webpage. I want to, and then start a business, and it will take them to this page, which has lots of information. Sean, if you could press on like a sign, the, oh no, if you, on this, if you can press on the sign guidance, you scroll down. So the different topics, signs, and then if you go to the sign permit guidance, just an example, if you scroll down on that, it just gives a high level, these, here are the rules and regs, recall us, reach out, we can get more into the details with you. So that was a big undertaking and I'm really excited that's gonna go out, be updated to the city council tomorrow. We're also informing the BIA and the Chamber of Commerce and like letting businesses know as they're renewing their licenses. Also, I wanted to update you, you might have seen some construction happening behind the Burger King and that's actually a Tesla charging station, they're putting in, I think it's a little over a dozen Tesla charging stations. The rules and regulations of the state have changed drastically with this, so that application did not come in front of you. It's in compliance with all the state regulations, it's reviewed administratively and it's currently in construction. Housing element, that's the next update. We unfortunately got the news last Friday that the housing element was not certified. The, I think I explained to you that the day before city council took action on that item, we did receive a letter from our lone geyer calling out quite a few items with our housing element. There are some really easy fixes in there and then there are some other items that we still have questions on with the state. So we do have, I met with our consultant team this week, we've now got a meeting scheduled for next Monday and we're gonna work through some of those tougher items. Like one item that's listed as increasing height limits at the mall site and typically you would put that in your zoning code update, you wouldn't call out a 70 foot height limit in your housing element. So just trying to figure out where are they going with this and what do we need to do. Based on our conversation next Monday, we'll let you know what we're gonna do in terms of the next public hearing on this. If we do not have to change any of our rena sites in this, in these modifications, which there's a chance we might have to change rena sites tied to the schools, but if we do not have to, there was in our resolution, it provides me the authority to make non substantive changes. And so it was a height change, I would bring that to you. That's a substantive change, but if they're all minor edits, that's something that we can approve administratively and get that housing element back into the state. Otherwise we'd have to follow all the public noticing requirements and for housing element, I think it's six weeks that we have to have it published online and then we go through the adoption hearings or it has to be available for the six weeks during the adoption hearings. And then once it gets to the state, I was hoping there was a reduction in the next review for the turnaround time for the HCD, but once again, they get 60 days to review our housing element. So. So in the meantime, the builders remedy is an effect? Builders remedy is an effect. And under builders remedy, typically you see those projects in areas that are not zoned for residential. Luckily, like all of our commercial areas are zoned for residential now. And under builders remedy, you are required to provide 20% affordability where our code requires 15. So hopefully we don't have builders remedy project come in. Sure. It seems like this is a pretty good problem to sit here through the rest of this meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next is the 4401 Capitola Road, the affordable housing project. We issued the building permit on that. So you're gonna start seeing construction there. Wharf update. We are going to be bringing you, not at the February meeting, but at the March meeting. When the city council got the update on the wharf design, as in my director's update, I gave it to you during December, there was some concern. We're bringing that back to you. So we're going to update the design permit on the wharf. We're gonna have you review the entryway. And that work is underway, but it will not be ready for February. So that will come to you in March. And then the last is next week at the planning, at city council, the Capitola Road and Bulb Avenue conceptual review for the assisted living facility will be heard. The applicant modified the plans. They set the building back. They put the parking in front of the building. There's no longer access off of Bulb Avenue. So trying to work with those neighbors there. They've tried to, they reached out to mid pen and I think Eden to affordable housing groups to see if there was a way to make those affordable. And it's, and I heard this from mid pen directly that it's just not in the model. But like, these are more of medical type facilities. And typically when you see more affordable assisted living it's state run. So it's just, it's a challenging one in terms of that. But so that will be reviewed by the city council for whether or not it is a substantial community benefit next week. And those are my updates. You know, we had the storm, I guess is the last storm update was there were three residential units that were impacted. One, well, there's two units at the Venetian unit seven and seven and a half that it was hit again and it was more the, but they were in the building permit process and they're planning to hopefully modify a wall so that the angle, the wall is improved. And so they're still in the building permit process. And I think it's, I don't know if they had rebuilt it if it would have protected it quite yet. So they're gonna over build it and hopefully protect that unit. And then the other unit that I think it's unit number 11 there's a large window that broke and that's a yellow tag. They just need to get the correct permits to move forward. And then we have one outstanding, one of the commercial units along the Esplanade and they haven't reopened since the initial. I wanna say sand bar, but I know that's the bay bar. Sorry. So the bay bar has not reopened. I know they've been doing some work, but they haven't reopened since the initial January storm. So that's my update there. And I think the response time was much better this time. I think people were prepared and thank you, Jerry, for all the coordination. I think at Zeldis there was quite an emergency of we need to move some patio furniture quick and I think Jerry got a call. And the next thing you know, the football team is down there helping out moving furniture. So that was extremely impressive and we're very grateful. So that's my director's update. I'll start this time. On the house back to the housing element thing, two questions. One, do you have an update on the mall study that's going on? Any progress there? Yes. So we're meeting with the consultant, Cosmont, tomorrow. They've initiated the study and they're going to present their initial analysis through a Zoom call of what they've identified in terms. We really want to get through the housing element update before we, to make sure we have everything that needs to be in the housing element before we open up the mall study in terms of- Well, yeah, but maybe some of their ideas. I mean, the state's complained about mall. Maybe we can feed in whatever they've discovered into our redo of the housing element for the mall element, program 1.7, right? Yeah. Besides raising the height to 1500 feet or whatever the state wants us to do that. That's a great point. Yeah. Which I have a feeling they're going to push hard on the right raising the height. The second thing on this program 1.1, do you understand what they mean by we should commit to establishing density incentives? So this one, 1.1 is the lot consolidations and under lot consolidations within Capitola, there is no density limit because they're all on mixed use or commercial sites. There's one consolidated site that's a church site that it also doesn't apply to. So we're just gonna, that's an easy fix of informing the HCD that there actually are no density limits and that's why you don't see that in there. So easy fix. That makes sense, great. Sorry, so a couple questions. I think we were maybe accidentally or maybe emailed about the 600 Park Avenue. Is that a project that might be coming forward? Thank you, yes. So 600 Park Avenue recently went on the market. We've had some inquiries on that. I followed up with that, the person that sent out the inquiry that saying at this time, the most appropriate people to reach out to his staff so that we can work through some of their zoning questions. So, but yes, 600 Park is on the market. So we've been, do either of you have an update on that? Do you know if it's sold or? Okay, so yeah, but it's still on the market. Recently listed. Sorry for all the questions, but just things that have been going on. So also read in the paper two days ago, and I think this kind of falls up to Commissioner Wilkes comments in the past about, I think our last commission meeting, we approved alcohol licensing for Miho's Tacos. And we read, I read in the paper that seems like at 15, 115 San Jose Avenue Merchantile, that they're looking at a hops place opening up there where one of the, I think keto bites or whatever was going in there. And there's an article written in the paper about how they're going to go in there and it's going to be having another beer place, just distillery or whatever. And you know, they talked about the other ale house and Sasha's works and all the other ones. Have you seen any application? I just read in the paper and it's like, is that something that somebody's already brought forward? So we don't have an official application for that yet, but Ryan's been meeting with the applicant. There is a master use permit for that location in which we were setting that up for possible tasting rooms in the future and kind of a market idea inside of, I think it was an idea that Dennis Norton brought forward of like tasting of cheeses and wines and that type of thing, more like an Abbott Square setup and shared areas for consumption. So we do have an interested applicant. I believe we'll see an application really soon and you'll probably see that in the next couple planning commission meeting. And then with the, I appreciate update on the storm water damage. It seems like there's a lot of extra water, obviously, that was just displaced into the village and stuff. Any talk about, was there any damage to the residents? I know I saw pumps pumping out water from underneath the residences, like on San Jose Avenue and stuff. Is there any planters, anybody looking at what, is that potentially an ongoing problem or was there an issue that happened with that? My understanding is that one of the pumps broke or it no longer is working within the village. So I think that's something that public works will be working on. They had to bring in other pumps, but definitely that will be addressed. Also, I should have mentioned there was additional impacts to the wharf. I think something around the $200,000 worth of additional damage to the area that they were already working on, as well as Hooper's stairs were damaged. We're kind of, we're thinking about a long-term fix there instead of continuing to put up wooden staircases that had taken off with the storm, something more permanent that would handle. And I'm sorry, I just have one more. The city council is looking like they're gonna be engaging in a strategic plan update. Looking at the vision of that, does that, like a strategic guys said, that's gonna be starting meeting with community groups, but how would planning interface with that as a strategic plan and what, there's been many plans made and vision capitol and all that, that was, I think, 2018, 2019. How are those gonna get rolled all together and then what role do you see planning commission playing to that? Great, great question. I actually meant to put that in my update. So the city council just funded a contract for a strategic plan and really trying to just set some, just who are we, what's important to us, what is our strategic plan? So when we're making decisions, if we identify ourselves as a historic coastal community, it's key words that you put into these plans to help with decision-making and having a clear vision. Within this strategic plan, we, there's, within the contract, quite a bit of the funding is going towards public outreach and trying to engage the residents, but the planning commission will definitely play a role in this and that you'll be interviewed and there's, the other part of this is we're really trying to reach out to all members of our community and get the word out to make sure everyone is engaged. So if you have any ideas, we actually did a staff brainstorm on this today at our staff meeting management meeting of how do we make sure everyone has the opportunity to be involved with this? So if there are any ideas you have that you'd like to share with me, I'd be happy to bring those to Chloe who's managing that project, but it's quite an exciting endeavor, hoping, I think the goal is to complete this by summer. So it'll be a lot of public outreach and then they'll draft something and bring it to the city council. No, it's a strategic plan for the city. So it'll really help with, it's different from a general plan, but a guidance document that can really help when you're figuring out your budgeting and what are our main priorities within the city. So it's different where the general plan is really guided towards land use, housing, transportation, this is really, it's everything, it's like what's really important to us as a strategic planning and I'm sure we'll see the climate change and coastal, the impacts of these storms as well as like equity in these discussions, so. The rail trail. And the rail trail and trees. One quick thing, so we don't keep these poor people waiting too much longer. Public works or the police department come back and let us know what the city's going to do about enforcing the new requirement around crosswalks where you can't park within 20 feet of them. It's just driving through the village that's going to affect the number of parking places down there as well as all over town. And I'm not an expert, but having read the law, it doesn't matter whether the crosswalk is marked or not, so it seems like it has an impact at every intersection in Capitola. So I just want to know how's that going to be handled because it's a lot of parking spaces that are going to be eliminated in general. So we can do that, we can come back with information. Is that every, any more questions? Nope, okay, so are we safe to move on to item B? Yes, and I'd like to say a few things at the beginning of the next. So you can introduce it and then we'll. Okay, that's perfect. All right, so item B is 417 Capitola Avenue. The project is a design permit to demolish an existing commercial building, bash, and construct a new single family dwelling with a variance request for the floor area ratio, a minor modification request for the maximum driveway width. And exception requests to the rear and side setbacks. The project is located within the MUN mixed use neighborhood zoning district. The project is in the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit, which is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. Recommended action is either consider permit 230330 and either approve the project as a proposed or provide direction on recommended revisions to the design and continue the application to a future meeting. Just like to take a moment to explain the conflicts of interest that exist with this project. Commissioner Christensen is an employee of the applicant Fuse and has a conflict resulting in the interest of our business position and receipt of income. Commissioner Wilk and Westman both live within 500 feet of the proposed project and have a resumed conflict towards whether or not a decision on this would have a measurable impact on their property. During our December 7th, 2003 meeting, we drew straws for and during that meeting, Commissioner Westman drew the shortest straw and she randomly drew the shortest straw and will participate in this item. As previously indicated, Commissioner Westman may have a conflict as the result of real property interest in her primary residence, which is within 500 feet of the proposed project site. And with that, Commissioner Wilk and Commissioner Christensen can refuse themselves from this item. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Jensen is. I guess we already read the project description. So the VSTAF report. Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. As stated before, the entitlements include a design permit, cost development permit, variance and minor modification and this project is located in the mixed use neighborhood zone. This is the site as it appeared shortly before the current bash store moved in. The project is located between next to City Hall and very close to the capital of village along the mixed use corridor here. And this is the proposed site plan. The new residents that they are proposing would situate the building several feedback from where the existing shop is, creating a modest front yard. Similar to the existing structure and the adjacent properties, the applicant is proposing lot line construction to the north and to the south. The project results in a three story, 1,936 give or take square foot home and here you can see the front and rear elevations. There aren't any side elevations because of that lot line construction but we do have a rendering next. This is looking at the south front corner looking north. You can see the third story proposed deck here. This gives a pretty good example of what that might look like relative to the overall roof size. It's just right here. It's about 30 square feet. So just wanted to make note of that because I received some commissioner questions about the third story deck. I wanted to include this is something that the applicant provided as a street scape of this subject property and the adjacent two properties. This is a similar front rendering. In the initial review by staff, we had concerns regarding the designs somewhat top heavy massing and the feasibility, separately of the feasibility of a front yard perpendicular parking space that would have been partially in front of the front entrance as well as the then single car garage. Staff recommended the applicant increase the space on the ground floor, bring the entry closer to the street and reduce the size of the roof overhangs. Staff also recommended that they incorporate further landscaping elements to create a more functional front yard. Subsequent submittals incorporated a number of these recommendations including moving the front entrance several feet closer, incorporating an additional garage space rather than the exterior perpendicular space and improved front yard, the front landscaping with lowering plants and a patio area. The application includes several special requests namely the variants for the 236 square feet of a 486 square foot two car garage. That would be an exemption from the floor area calculation. Zoning code already exempts up to 250 square feet of garage area from the floor area calculation on lots smaller than 2,586 square feet. This lot is about 1,700 square feet so it certainly qualifies and that means that this area that they're requesting exemption from would be the remainder of that two car garage. Regarding the variance findings, the lot does have several unusual circumstances including its small size, it's a regular shape, the angle it has with the street and its location within a flood zone and within the base flood elevation. Regarding the garage and the parking area as we noted before with initial concerns about their exterior parking space, only tandem configuration has really seemed feasible at this spot and in order to provide two parking spaces and it's also worth noting that even if they had an exterior space like a carport where it would be underneath the structure or it's overhangs that would be considered a floor area as the city counts carports towards the floor area calculation. Development standards for the mixed use neighborhood emphasize bringing structures towards the street while minimizing visibility of open parking areas. At its narrowest point, a single parking space is nearly half as wide as the lot itself, making parking along the side of a structure almost impossible. You look at the garage, it's about 12 feet wide and at the narrowest point where it has with the structure it's about 13 feet wide with the remainder of the lot. So the zoning code exempts single car garage spaces on small lots because of the disproportionate impact it has on development potential and because the zoning code does not require more than a single covered parking space for single family projects. Because the strict application of the zoning code makes it difficult to provide two parking spaces where neither of which would count towards the FAR and because there are nearby residential uses that do not meet parking requirements, strict application of the zoning code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties nearby. Wanted to also share the language up above which are from the development standards from our code regarding mixed use development and as I mentioned before it emphasizes having structures, new structures be closer to the street, having visible front entries and reducing the impacts of the parking areas. So it's really trying to get that away from the front yard and create something more aesthetic, functional and integrated with the street. Staff was able to make supportive findings for the granting of a variance including the variance that the variance would not be considered a grant of special privilege. The aerial above reflects the report analysis identifying numerous properties within a 200 foot radius that exceed an FAR of 1.0 by at least 200 square feet. And I'll note further that three of the properties on there are actually R1 zone. So their excess from the allowed floor ratio is even greater. I just kept a straight metric of 1.0 for the sake of analysis. All right, the application also includes a minor modification request to allow a driveway that exceeds 40% of the lot width in the R1 zoning district. By contrast, properties are allowed a driveway width of at least 14 feet, even if it exceeds 40% of the lot width. Mixed use zone does not include such provision which means that the maximum allowed width in this case would be nine feet, nine inches. The applicant is requesting the ability to construct a 10 foot seven inch wide driveway which exceeds the standard by less than 10%, which is why it's a minor modification rather than a variance. Subject property is within stretch of capital avenue that's actually identified within the zoning code itself as having particularly substandard lot sizes and dimensions, which is why they were also able to request lot line construction without the request for a variance. Subject property is approximately 25 feet wide. And like I just mentioned, the zoning code allows reduced setbacks without the need of a variance or minor modification but does not include a provision for driveway widths which is similarly impacted by the relative size of the lot and its width widths. Many properties, when looking at this, many properties along capital avenue do not provide parking on site at all. And several of the properties that do have driveways that are either the entirety of the frontage or just to simply exceed 40%. The increased driver width and creates a parking solution that would make movements, turning movements easier onto the lot to and from the street, which is somewhat significant on a collector street such as this. And therefore staff was able to make findings on support of that minor modification. Also wanted to share with you, this is what we received earlier today as a additional material. It's the diagram provided of a turning radius, a right turn, which is probably gonna be the most commonly made turn into this site. It's hard to see, but right here is where the power pole is. This is, as noted in the report, this is the main reason this was provided at the request of staff, is that we did have some concern over the ability to make a safe turn into the lot and driveway and garage while clearing that pole. So we wanted to provide this to the Planning Commission for consideration. So with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission either approve the project as proposed or provide direction regarding changes to design, such as the overall massing and continue the application to the March date or the March hearing. I thank you very much for the report. Before we hear from the applicant, does any commissioners have any comments? What were the questions about the third story deck? 30 square foot thing? You said you had some questions from? Yeah, I just received, in one of my conversations with the Planning Commission, when we call ahead of a meeting to see if there's any questions, it was just brought up that wanted to think about the upper story deck being that we have heightened recently our interest in upper story decks. And this is the first example they've seen since then that would be a third story deck. So I just wanted to provide that rendering that shows the relative size of that third story deck, which is both facing the street. It has a wall screen to the adjacent property, the only property that would be visible from it. And even though that roof overhang is quite large, the area that this third story deck occupies is only about 30 square feet, at least small, yes. So we'll go out to a public comment or after I'd like to answer any questions. Good evening commissioners and staff. My name is Dan Townsend. I'm one of the owners, my business partner Dan Gomez for the owners of the property. We're local business owners. We use architects and fees construction. This is one of our properties. And I'd just like to say first thanks to the staff for all the effort put into this. It is a very unusual lot shape, a lot size. It took a long time to get to this point. And so, and they were wonderful to work with. So thank you for that. We're here to answer any questions if you have any. Perfect, thank you. So we'll close of a comment and bring it back. Okay, I spent a lot of time thinking about this particular project. And for me, because one of the things that seems to be going on in Capitola right now is we seem to be a bit schizophrenic on where we're going. Behind this project, we have a historical district and I actually took a photograph. I can give one to staff or pass it down to that end of the table. From the historic district and we have all of these small single story cottages back there and people on that street who want to redo their homes have a whole lot of restrictions replaced on them because it's a historic district. And the photograph does show the new three-story duplex that got built adjacent to where this property would go. And so, I have concerns about our role as a planning commission. Our role is, which way do we go? Has the city decided that we're not going to sort of have buildings that fit into a Capitola character? Which for me personally, I've argued for years there really isn't a Capitola design. Capitola is made up of a number of unique buildings that are all different and it's sort of that eclectic mix that makes Capitola work. But we've always been very concerned about the impact that what this new construction is going to do to the people who are there whether it's businesses next door or whether it's residential that are adjacent to them. And I looked at this particular design and I hear, well, there's a precedent because we did allow three-story similar building next door to this one. You know, for me, there's also a precedent because next door on the other side, there's a very nice building that's been remodeled and looks great, you know, is that one a precedent too? And I've never been one to say that, you know, everything in Capitola had to be cute and quaint and have little curly cues on it. I think this particular group did a project a little further up on Capitola Avenue where there's an apartment building and some single family houses. And for me, it's one of the nicest projects. It's gone down in a long time. It looks good. If it's the site, you know, it works in that neighborhood. So I've struggled with this and I just, for me personally, I just can't make this particular design work on this site. It's like we're trying to get way too much on what is a pretty small, difficult parcel. And, you know, I know by doing the flat roof, they get the three stories in and have more square footage. And I could be pretty lenient on the square footage. Like I don't have a problem with the floor area ratio on the garage because I think they've come up with a solution on that part that works. But where the design is right now, because I think, I know I'm rambling a bit, I think that if this building gets built next to the building next door, then maybe you are starting to set a precedent when you have two buildings side by side. Is that what Capitola Avenue is going to look like? So I'm, for me personally, I'm struggling with this particular design. How would we make any findings that it fits into the character of the neighborhood? When you have to start frosting most of the windows on the rear of the building to have privacy where the people behind it does this design really work and fit on this location. So I'm willing to listen to what my other commissioners have to say, but I'm struggling with this one. So that was, I started out with the same sort of mindset on this one, like this is quite a modern design. And does it really fit in with the neighborhood, like you said, because on the river view side, obviously it's those cute green cottages, but on Capitola Avenue, it feels like we're modernizing it, so to speak. And the number of buildings are heading towards this more, yeah, literally more modern design. I did like, I didn't like not having that second garage and having an open space like that, that didn't feel like it was gonna fit. Having it, you know, the store, postfront being along adjacent to the storefront of the adjacent buildings makes a lot more sense to me. So the variance on the size is fine with me. Whether we go to wall to wall on this or we push them back, you know, on the sideline variances, I think given where we are with lack of housing and things in the city, that one is probably worth giving up on. You know, I'm reviewing it, reviewing it. I actually ended up liking the design that fuses come up with on this one. I think it kind of fits in. It all sort of fits in a little bit with how we're redoing, you know, the Esplanade storefront, right? It's sort of the same look now, when it's at the same company, but my net on this was, I think it's gonna be a fine addition to the neighborhood. My concern is gonna make City Hall look like shabby. But, you know, at some point, somebody's gonna complain about City Hall, like, why do you have City Hall looking like that when you got all this new modern stuff to buy? I'm reviewing the study right now to determine what to do at City Hall. I mean, that's one of the studies that's taking place, is what's gonna happen on this side of the street. Well, yeah, I'd be more concerned about having a true emergency operation center for City Hall than worrying about what the facade looks like. That's a separate subject. So my final analysis was I struggled with the look of it, but in the net I'm okay with it. Thank you. So my concerns I had was more with the variances and establishing practices of going forward on what variances are given to each project to make the massing or the building fit to each piece of property. And so, again, I think my previous comments earlier were about setting practice and a presence going forward. I think the one we spoke to earlier this evening was not brought on by the applicant at all. It was a preexisting condition and the city rezoned it and stuff like that. So that's where my concern was mostly on the project. I tried to stay very neutral in design and not dictate what a project looks like per se, but that I want to stay very sensitive to what the community looks like and where things are kind of going and establishing as I read the staff report, it talks about the project next door as, you know, there is one next door, so there's three story. So now this one would be a three story and then continue how that starts to set a presence going forward and then allowing variances as much as I understand the variance. I think it was 236 square feet to the garage to help with the parking and then to zero lot line if I remember correctly. And that's where my concerns were when looking at the project. I mean, I think that, you know, Katie mentioned in her things that one of the things that in this strategic plan they're gonna look at is, you know, which direction is Capitola going to go in because when the building was built next to the trestle, you know, probably a couple of years before the duplex was built, the city made them build. There were lots of requirements about, you know, how it had to fit into the village character. That's where the- App house is? App house is. And put a lot of restrictions on them about, you know, informing to, you know, the village and the village character. So, you know, I think we've been all over the place which makes it, you know, difficult when you sit here to say, you know, what is the right thing to do and the way to go? And, you know, as I said, you know, a well-designed building whether it's, you know, a modern style or, you know, sort of a cottage style, there it's about the building being a, you know, well-designed building. And, you know, I have to, I do have to agree with Paul. I think that, you know, so far the, you know, designs that have been done, you know, by fuses are nice looking buildings. It's, you know, how is this going to fit into Capitola and how's it going to impact, you know, what happens in the future? What is a precedent? What isn't a precedent? You know, we're sort of going all, we're sort of going all over the place. And most of Capitola was built before it was incorporated, you know, in 1948 or 49, I don't know, there's a sign around here, 1949. So, I mean, I guarantee, I could go out and find a building in town that sort of did anything that anybody wanted to do. It's built on the property line. It's even built over the property line. You know, they're all over town. So, I just, you know, I just worry about the direction that we're going in, but I'm sensing from the two of you that you're okay with this building. So, that's all it takes for this building to get approved. I just clarify that I had a concern with the variances that were asked for, to have the building be built. I hear what you're saying about that. I, you know, I looked at it first and I kept thinking, well, you know, it's the variances that are making this possible. But when I went through them one by one, I do think, you know, the design with the two tandem parking spaces is certainly much better than having the big hole in the front of the building. So, you know, I say to myself, well, you know, I can support that because they've sort of, they've changed their design to come up with something that's going to work better in this particular location. And, you know, clearly the buildings along here are all sort of lot line to lot line going down the street and having someone put in a three foot, I think it would be three foot because that's the minimum sort of side yard setback through there, you know, we would end up with these little alleyways that aren't really going to do anything to improve the community or the neighborhood. You know, one of my biggest concerns is, you know, how the buildings on, you know, this side sort of loom over what are the smaller historic district on the other side. And, you know, has the time come when we want to say, you know, let's just forget about trying to preserve historical capital at that time has come and gone. You know, maybe it has because property has gotten so expensive that everybody, you know, needs to absolutely max out what they've got to make it work. It's just, I think it's unfortunate that they couldn't come up with a design that, you know, fit a little more into the character that I think most people see in Capitola. And, you know, I think of the village itself, I think this, I think it's going to be grim when we have all three-story flat roof buildings going in because that's the only way people can sort of max out their site. That's just, you know, my personal dilemma and vote on it because, you know, what the staff recommendation is is to approve it or else give them some specific directions about what they need to do to redesign it. And, you know, I certainly can't give them any specific directions other than, you know, is there a way just to, you know, sort of soften the building a bit? Is there a way to deal with the rear elevation of the building a bit so it isn't so, you know, imposing on the neighbors to the rear? You know, those would be my comments and those are pretty vague and not real, not real specific. So I understand that. I just, I have concerns about the direction the designs are going in the city. Would the applicant like to respond to any of those comments? Thank you. Thank you for your comments. They're much appreciated and trust us, we have thought about all of these things ourselves and we love Capitola. We love the character of Capitola and one of our favorite things about Capitola is there isn't a specific design. We are about, and you've probably seen our work, we are about quality of design. That's it, we labor over our designs. We consider all factors. We consider views, we consider neighbors, we consider everything when it comes to our designs. That's what we're trained to do and that's what our passion is. So when we have a challenging site like this, which this one is, it's kind of fun for us to come up with what we think are very creative solutions to difficult things. So we do have, we enjoy that and this one was one of the more challenging ones for us. But we did consider the neighbors to the rear, they are one there, we did shade studies. You've probably seen that in the packet. Massing studies, I think the most important thing as far as the massing and the height go is the height limit. That's what's the most important, not necessarily whether it's two stories or three stories. In our opinion, and the other buildings on Capitol Avenue meet that massing and are at the line where we are. So that's more important as far as stories go. Yes, we were able to get three stories in there, but we're in a flood zone, so there's some balance there that we've had. And I just want to point of clarification, the number of variances is one that we're looking for. The other ones are minor modifications. And I think you all understand the minor modifications and they do make sense. I do appreciate your insight on that variance for the garage because you did see our first design was to have, as you mentioned, a hole in the front. The city would like covered spaces and it just didn't make sense. So we do just want to say we appreciate you understanding that because it was up in the air for us. What are we gonna do to solve this situation? So I don't know if that answered your questions. Capitol is a mix of designs. I mean, we've got Dutch, we've got French, we've got everything throughout the years. And in some of those aren't very appropriate for, but we've got to appreciate them. It's a mix. We are in a community of mixed design. The building that was recently remodeled right next to our property is one of our properties. And that was really fun for us to utilize the pitch roof there, kind of modernize it. And we considered the three buildings there as one design project so that it did fit. So I appreciate your comments. All of them, Dan and I spend a lot of time on this stuff is we do not take it lightly. And we wanna make sure we've been in Capitol and now for 22 years and we're not going anywhere. We're gonna be here for another 20 years. And we wanna make sure that we are doing the right thing by the community and by the city. And yes, we would love to help redesign this building. Oh, I would like this, we have... Yeah, sure, go ahead. And Gomez, the other partner, if he is. I just wanted to kind of address Susan because I totally wholeheartedly agree with you. Like in the Capitol Village, this eclectic mix is what makes it fantastic. And we don't wanna see all of the character go away and what you call character. So, and we agree with you, but a sprinkling of the design and keeping that eclectic feel is great. And I mean, in traveling, it's kind of cool. Like I was fortunate to get to travel to Europe this summer and walking through these old Italian villages. And it's awesome. And then you come across these modern buildings that are just within it all and it just works. And it's great. It brings vibrance to the community and people love the kind of the feel of the good, the new, the old, the mix of all that. So I totally understand where you're coming from. We don't wanna see that go away. We like the idea, like we were saying on the 415 Capitol Avenue, embracing what was there. Loved it. It worked, it was fantastic. We're glad and we think that's a really successful project and it's small. And this building, fortunately, through all our design studies, what we really liked about it is that it was kind of like a bridge between the three as we see it's kind of like a one kind of thing. And it's a thing and they compliment each other. And it was, as you see the stepping in, stepping out, we really wanted to peel it back. And you'll see on that ground floor and working with staff, we really wanted to kind of incorporate more of a vibe where people feel like, hey, there's landscaping. It's not just street, sidewalk, driveways, right? It's, we don't wanna just see it where there's no greenery. There's no trees. So our idea was that, hey, you have a building that is on 419 where it's primarily driveway because we have two garages to go to one, step it back, bring back the element to where now it kind of vibes into, you have landscape. You have some interaction. People can stop and hang out, they can go by and kind of break up that monotony. So totally agree with you and we understand your concerns and we can tell why you can struggle with it because it's a thing. And one last thing, when we were doing 419 back in the day, remember we came to, we kind of went through some schematic design studies and really listened to what the community was saying. And actually that was a response to a lot of the neighbors and a lot of the neighbors behind us, particularly Mr. Greaves and he loved it. He supported it and he was like, I love it. I love that it's like, this is what we want. And so I agree with you. I mean, we have the historic part behind us that we're trying to respect. We understand it's a different zoning on our side of the street, you know? And we remember that conversation distinctly because we didn't know if he was supported or not and it was cool that he kind of came in and just said straight up, hey, I like it. I like what you're doing. I understand I'm the neighbor behind you and I support it and I get it. And it doesn't affect me in a negative way. And so we totally agree with that. And we love our neighbors. We've talked to our neighbors behind us and so far everybody's been very supportive. So in that, we totally understand and appreciate your comments. So thank you guys. Thank you. I would like to move that we accept this proposal, including the Fourier ratio variance or the extra garage space and the exceptions to the side yard rear yard setback and the minor modification of the driveway width. As staff has pointed out in their motion, do we have a second? I'll second it. Do we have a motion to second? Do we have a roll? Commissioner Estee. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. And Vice Chair Jensen. Aye. So will the chair come back? Okay, she left so you get to close the meeting. She's out there. Oh, she's out there. I thought she might want to come back. Thank you. If you could, we should adjourn to a specific date. We will adjourn to our next meeting, which is February 2nd. Oh, I meant to tell them. It's the best Christmas tree in Capitola. I told February, excuse me. Let me, February 1st. February 1st at six o'clock. Thank you. And we have an assignment to get our things into you by Monday. By Monday. All right. Thank you.