 We'll call the meeting of the Capitola Planning Commission to order for all call, please Commissioner Welch Commissioner Ruth Mr. Christensen Commissioner Welch and chair Newman here. Thank you a pledge of allegiance Okay This meeting is being cablecast live on charter communication cable TV channel 8 and AT&T Uverse channel 99 and is being recorded to be replayed on the following Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. On charter channel 71 and Comcast channel 25 Meetings can also be viewed from the city's website www.cityofcapitola.org Our technician tonight is Kingston Rivera As a reminder, please turn off your cell phones during the meeting If you're gonna speak on any of the items today, you'll come up here and Sign your name on the sheet at the podium. So we have that for the minutes Okay, next item is oral communications I any additions or deletions To the agenda no additional additions or deletions Next is the an opportunity for public communications Which is a time with which people can address the Planning Commission on items that are not on the agenda And it looks like we may have someone Yes Give us your name and then yeah, my name is Rafa Sonnenfeld. I'm with neighbor Lee Santa Cruz I've been a renter in Capitola and I'm here today to express my displeasure and dismay at the City Council's decision last week to require Off-Street parking for all ADU types in the coastal zone And I'm requesting that this Commission use your power to push back on that City Council decision You'll be processing the The local coastal program that goes along with that decision and I think it's really bad Planning I'm arguing that Capitola has decided that preserving their current residential street parking entitlement is more important than increasing the affordable housing options in the coastal zone Preserving encouraging and providing affordable housing is a coastal access policy just like parking is But the City Council ignored the housing policy of the Coastal Act focusing on preserving their existing street parking entitlement program Capitola could have chosen to mitigate the parking impacts of the new ADUs by simply not permitting street parking for them This would not have decreased the existing coastal access for visitors or current residents and would have increased the coastal access by creating more residential opportunities There's also current limits on the amount of street parking available in the Capitola village, but they ignored that and continued to require no off-street parking or require off-street parking for any ADU even in the village New residential development doesn't need to accommodate parking. In fact all the new State laws that Capitola is flouting via the supposed coastal zone loophole Specifically exempt most ADUs from off-street parking requirements By preserving their existing street parking entitlement program even the mitigation the city just approved of Requiring an off-street parking spot in the coastal zone would require or would result in a reduction in coastal access for visitors Because in neighborhoods other than the village there is no limit to the number of vehicles The new ADU residents will be allowed to park on the street anyways A UCLA urban planning professor considered to be the leading voice in parking policy is Against off-street parking requirements and against having free parking in general so once again, I just urge you to push back on the city council and to take a stand Choose people over parking. Thank you. Thank you anyone else. We should address. Okay. Next. I is Commission comments anyone Seeing none Yes I'd like to respond to the comment that was just brought up and in my opinion, I I try to interpret the will of the city council and not to Derive their decisions anymore. In fact, we went to them to try to get some guidance on Where we should stand on ADU's and whether or not we should be very proactive in terms of Housing and be you know do bend over backwards and try to get as many people in the village as possible or Are we do we consider ourselves basically overbuilt and do and we want to push back on this and the general Consensus I got from the city council was that We wanted to look for loopholes because we did think of that. We were overbuilt particularly in the village and so there was plenty of opportunities perhaps in the liken that the new Mall area there are areas where we can have a lot of additional Affordable housing, but perhaps in the coastal zone It's not something we want to encourage and so we are kind of pushing back and looking for loopholes again That's was my interpretation with the city council was going on that and I don't want to buck them because They're the elected officials and I just try my best to interpret the code Any other commissioner comments Staff comments idea I have I'm gonna kind of combine the staff comments and the director's report this evening First our ADU ordinance went through the first reading with the city council last week Hcd had the opportunity to read the draft and sometimes Hcd offers just like the coastal commission offers to give Preliminary feedback on a draft ordinance and we were fortunate enough to line up a phone call with them today and get their responses and the sponsors were very minor in And so we're working through those so we're going to be doing a Second first reading of our ADU ordinance at the next meeting at the meeting next week to incorporate with the Hcd Requested in terms of defining vacation rentals specifying that two-story ADUs that are beyond the 16-foot limit that's allowed by the state require planning commission reviews really minor edits just fine-tuning So that will go a second the first reading With the Hcd comments will go next week To the city council. I also wanted to update you that mattress firm has come into compliance with the sign code after a Few fines that were established in many conversations 401 Capitola Avenue across the street. We've had ongoing Issues with following the building permit that also is now in compliance and they'll be moving forward and pouring the very limited area for the trash enclosure and moving forward with their building permit and also myself in the finance director and touch with Vacation rental compliance group and we'll be meeting with them to talk about services that they could possibly provide to the city the Contract that we had combined with tax review services. They weren't quite set up for that portion of it So we're branching out to a more specialized Trying to reach out to more specialized groups. So those are the updates so just a question on the 401 Capitola Avenue, I see that they've Made smaller the area that they were going to Pour concrete in there. They're gonna then cover the rest with flagstone or Some other alternative for a patio there. No The area that has been laid out to be poured will be poured the rest will be landscaping Okay, okay. Good. Thank you That takes us to the Approval of the minutes and we have Minutes of January 16 2020 and minutes of February 6 2020 Comments changes We could do it in separate motions. I abstain from item B Okay, so does anyone want to make a motion on item a I'll move that we approve item a Second all in favor I That passes unanimously anyone on item B We have second second all in favor I and the commissioner which will abstain Okay, we'll have two abstentions on that. Thank you Okay, that takes us to our consent calendar, we have two items on the consent calendar One is just a continuance, but we'll do that, but we're going to take these separately the first item is well, let me ask this is there anyone either in the audience or Commissioners that want to have a hearing on either of the two items one is a design permit for a Demolition of an existing one-story single-family residence in construction of a new two-story single-family residence at 1530 49th Avenue The other one is continuance of an application at 115 San Jose Avenue as anyone want those heard And a public hearing if not, we'll take them one at a time item a I move approval second Roll call vote, please Commissioner Welch I Commissioner Ruth I Commissioner Christensen I Commissioner Wilk I and chair Newman abstain And the next item is the continuance of 115 San Jose Avenue Motion to continue We have three seconds on that All in favor hi Okay, that takes us to our public hearings. We have three public hearings tonight Let me get an idea from people in the audience. How many are here for the 2163 Francesco Circle? One how many are here for 1115 41st Avenue? Three and how many are here for 201 Capitola Avenue? Three okay So we'll take them in the order that they're on the agenda the first one is 2163 Francesco Circle Application number 19 dash 0661 It's a tree application for a tree removal permit to remove three healthy palm trees and plant six trees Within the plan developments owning district staff report, please Good evening commissioners and chair Newman The applicant is requesting to remove three palm trees and plant six new trees on a single family lot located at 2163 Francesco Circle in the planned development zoning district The property and is in the northeastern corner of Francesco Circle Neighborhood and borders a mobile home park to the north and the capitol library to the east The proposed removals indicated in orange Are three queen palms an existing coast live oak and California palm would remain with those removals there would be Combined ten point nine percent canopy coverage with the palm tree the California palm and the oak The community tree and forest management ordinance allows for the removal of trees based on the following Health or condition of this tree safety considerations the likelihood to interfere with utility services Where the tree has caused or has the potential to cause unreasonable property damage and as part of a development application or applications The removals in this permit are considered as part of a development application Although the home is not being remodeled the property owner is proposing extensive work to the landscaping including the removal of the existing hardscape within the rear yard Removal of three palm trees and the establishment of six new trees Which are more complementary to the region in addition to some smaller plantings and landscaping In speaking with director Hurley he this is the first tree removal permit that has that is only associated with the landscape upgrade During her seven years with capitol. Typically these requests come in as a development application The community development director has the ability to approve tree removals associated with development applications However, since the interpretation has not been applied before the director thought it would be appropriate to request the planning commission review Should the planning commission approve the proposal future applications could be reviewed and approved administratively under similar circumstances As part of new construction and major remodels properties are required a post removal canopy coverage of 15% The current proposal has a replacement ratio of two to one and will have a canopy coverage that will exceed 15% when the trees reach maturity There's the list There's three myrtles and a flowering plum an Oklahoma redbud and a desert museum Palo Verde This slide lists the goals a through e of the community tree and forest management ordinance in our analysis Which was covered in the report staff determined that the project meets the intent of the goals and policies in those First a through e sections with that Staff recommends the planning commission review and approve the tree removal permit based on the conditions of approval and findings Okay So any questions of the staff at this point? This is a question. Yeah question question. So do you have the wording from the last time? We had a tree Removal and we instead went with a canopy coverage This was on I did one second Claire Street, wasn't it right? It was on Claire Street and The concern there was we were over imposing the number of trees and that really what we wanted was was can't canopy coverage primarily So if you have that I guess that was my question. Yeah, that yes, I do. Thank you Would you like red do you want anything for that if you had you could read it? Yeah, I'd be curious I hear what it says so the the draft condition for more tree plant planting flexibility The landscape plan shall reflect the planning commission approval with an allowance to reduce the six tree planter requirement as long as the 15% Minimum can't ever canopy coverage is met and shall identify type size and location of species Thank you Any other questions of staff if not, I'm gonna open the public hearing and let me just say because We've had a little problem with this in the past because as chair I maybe do this a little bit differently but I like to open the public hearing give the public a chance to say whatever they want to say then close the public hearing and The commissioners discuss it that doesn't mean that the public can then every time a commissioner gives a comment Say oh, I have something say about that because we we would then have to reopen the public hearing and let everybody speak again So say what you have to say at the beginning, please Okay, so anyone Seeing no one does the applicant applicant want to Speak at all. You don't have to Okay, all right good Okay, so we'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the commission Any thoughts I have no concerns with this I do have a concern and that and that is I'm sure she's happy with the trees that she's planting, but I think we shouldn't we shouldn't require that she plant all of those trees It might be the root, you know, we might have root problems. You might have overcrowding There might be all kinds of issues. So I think I would rather go with the wording that we had on the last Last tree issue on Claire Street, which was a 15% coverage requirement Which this would more than meet but she could afford to remove a tree or two if she chose to in the process Without having to come back for approval So you're suggesting a more generous correct a more generous I I'm not a fan of our forest management plan Never have been I think this two-for-one can be a little overwhelming This lot that the applicant has is Extreme what happens to be a little bit of a corner lot. So it has a little bit of room, but When I went and looked at I don't know where she's going to put six trees when they become mature She's not going to have room. So I think we need some areas to allow a little bit of concession for Those areas and again if the goal is 15% and let's do that But the two-for-one is a little overwhelming especially on some of these small lots So you would agree with Commissioner Wicks proposal in a short answer. Yes Well, I'm just curious how you how you major 15% canopy coverage. I mean they're going to plant Probably five gallon trees or maybe a 15 gallon tree. So how do you determine the That could be 20 years So I can speak to that a little bit for trees that haven't been planted we look at the species of the species of the tree and then look at arborist reviews of mature canopy coverage or Documents released by universities to see the best guest of 10 20 30-year assessments Okay, so it's interesting how we have different takes on this situation I'm I'm totally in favor of what's happening here in terms of the merits of it, but the theory is troubles me Basically, we're saying that the trees can be removed in Conjunction with a development application, which is basically just the landscaping every landscaping and changing the trees So it's almost the bootstrap here I think the intent of that was for a development application in the sense of a new building or in addition to a building and We don't have an application for the landscape Permit because we don't need a landscape permit. So I I'd like to be interested here what the other commissioners have to say about that. I'm certainly want to see this This take place, but I'm just not happy about the theory. I'm confused about your point You're saying that would this shouldn't even become before the planning commission because she could do whatever she want their landscaping No, I don't think it's I don't think that the statute technically provides for this because it says you can Take out trees in conjunction with a development application. That's the basis for this Okay, and this is not a development application except as there's a as the staff is saying this is the first time in seven years that The planning director has been here and all the time I've been here. I've never seen This and then a plant that a development application to support removal of the tree be the relandscaping of the property How was this any different than the tree removal request that we had on? 49th Avenue the redwood tree a few well that went to counsel didn't it yeah I went to counsel because we denied it, but we still heard it. So how is this any different? Yeah, well, I don't know what they the basis for their So on that one they were concerned about Overwatering of that tree and the effect that the over watering had on the branches and the branches Therefore being unhealthy and the risk to the public This one is unique. It's it's gonna hopefully, you know, the other plant their proposal to remove palms and have trees that are Local trees is in line with the goals when we went through the criteria we read through the what 20 page tree ordinance Very closely and to make findings that these trees are sick cannot be done and to make findings that They're impacting the building could not be done But under this there's one section that does allow with the development permit and I I do think that The ordinance is ready for an update Although we can't get to it at this point because we're still in the midst of other updates But I think this is an area that could be strengthened in the language of how we apply On the redwood tree removal on 49th weren't they required to replace it with two trees? Yes, so the replacement was the same the findings were findings under Findings for removal for the health and safety of the tree the issue is the basis for their removal under the ordinance and And just to be clear. I don't the applicants fine with the six trees. I'm fine with the six trees the impetus behind that Forest service man. Where the forest management plan that we have was An individual cutting down a tree on it wasn't it had nothing to do with development at the time Even though we tried to apply to that but so I Understand the concern and why we have the policy. I I like the percentage goal versus More trees and so But if the applicants find I'm fine allow her to have six trees Hey, I think the ordinance needs to be revised to be more liberal because I'm totally in favor of new trees that meet the recommended tree Plan that we have here in place of some of the older trees that are about lives their usefulness And I'd like to facilitate that happening in other places, too And I think of more little ordinance would be the way to do it rather than Sort of the theory that this is in conjunction with the development permit There you are Anyone care to try a motion? I'm still a little confused about your your issue It just it just it's just that the fact that the ordinance needs to be cleaned up and it doesn't really have to do with What do we do with this property? But we don't like the process associated with how we're handling it. That's right. We're basically modifying the ordinance Because it needs to we want the result. We want the outcome, right? So I would move a rewarding of the requirement to what staff had read earlier that I eat a 15% coverage So you want to you can make a motion based on I move I move that and I'm not sure how eloquently to say that but You can move approval with on that basis I move approval of the request With the on the basis that we reward the tree coverage to be 15% Per your reading rather than a two-for-one tree replacement Well, I'm not quite there. I I may do a second so I could ask the applicant a question So maybe for the sake of getting this to a question period up. Okay. I'll Second that motion. Okay, and then I have a question for the applicant. Okay. Go ahead Yeah, I'm sorry. You have to come up it So really the the issue has nothing to do with your trees And your your issue it has to do with our ordinance Are you're fine with the six put in the six trees in I guess it? I'm meet the requirement is yeah, no, it's a fantastic question and I Would like to abide by what's best for Capitola Six did seem like a lot because I initially came in thinking the two-for-one deal I would do one local tree and then one fruit tree so we would have apples and plums in the backyard but fruit trees are not allowed as the two-for-one although maybe with foliage that makes it easier because then I could get the Foliage appropriate and then still have room for an apple tree for the apple pies the girls and I like to make but it's a great question and I would hope that the Arborists that I work with or the native plant garden Accordingly and with the paperwork we had looked at to see how much space is needed It looks like we have enough space to do it, but you're right I am ripping out a lot of concrete although. I want to get rid of that anyways. I want native plants I want to bring butterflies and bees in but It would be a burden on other families who maybe don't have as much space that also want to kind of beautify Capitola to what's in line with you know the point of having these ordinances, so I am okay with six I'm still optimistic. We have the space and it's going to work out, but in 20 30 years Are they going to be overcrowding? It doesn't appear to be that way, but I did defer to the experts and we had a Lot of help from Sean and his team trying to work out which best because I had a different list initially of plants Our trees I was going to plant and then we work better together of like this might be a better fit and what would fit in our Space so yeah, it's a good question. Well, I commend you for I think many people would just cut the trees down and do So I can then you have actually coming in so thank you. Yeah, of course. No, thank you for the hearing Okay I'll leave my motion. I mean my second and I got I just have a question and I is the only difference between this application and a Application remove an unhealthy tree is the fact that these are healthy trees. Is that the only difference in the review criteria that's applied So there's four criteria to an unhealthy tree and for this the criteria is that a 15% canopy coverage be provided And if we remove an unhealthy tree, it's two for one Correct. Yes Yep, two for one. So I just don't see why we would handle them differently It's in the review the criteria that's being reviewed typically so for the Project where the tree was appealed. There's specific criteria for unhealthy trees that have to be for those You're mixing two different issues, let's say let's say these palm trees were not healthy They'd have to do the two for one right same thing. We're talking about right now No, the the other commissioners here are basically suggesting an alternative to the two for one that would Apply regardless of what the reason for removing the tree is but you have to have a reason for removing the tree And that's the first issue and the second issue is what is the replacement requirement? And they're suggesting that a less stringent replacement requirement would make sense Okay, yeah, I get that so if somebody comes in wants to remove an unhealthy tree Are we going to do a less stringent requirement on that? Person probably Valuated the case pending in this case. It's a very tiny lot I mean if we were talking about a four-acre lot then maybe we would have You know a different different attitude, but most the lots are pretty tiny So it's likely to come up again. All right, okay anything further. I'm gonna call for a roll call Commissioner Welch hi Commissioner Ruth. Hi Commissioner Christensen. Hi Commissioner Wilk. Hi and Sharon Newman I am reluctantly a no here. Although I favor this project. I don't think we have the grounds for it Okay, you passed That's your apple tree, okay, so there are two more items on the agenda and I'm gonna be turning the Panel over to the vice chair and it I think I'm supposed to explain why the first item 1541st Avenue I have a commercial relationship with the applicant that this qualifies me from hearing that item and The second item at 201 capitol Avenue. I have the property within the required art The proximity requirement so that disqualifies me from that and that will take us to the end of the agenda So I will see you next month Enjoy your evening. Mr. Newman Okay, that brings us to public hearing item B 1 1 1 5 41st Avenue application 1 9 0 5 3 4 and this is For an amendment to a master sign program for a Neal's serve shop located within the CC zoning district at the presentation, please Thank you The applicant is requesting an amendment to the master sign program for an existing business located at 1115 41st Avenue in the community commercial zoning district the The existing O'Neill surf shop is a two-story commercial building along 41st Avenue Across from in shape health clubs and Vruity liquors The site is located within capitol's 41st Avenue commercial corridor and on the border of the city at limit adjacent to residential uses within the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County This is the site plan existing wall signs are located on the beveled corners along 41st Avenue Sign a faces 41st Avenue and Milton Street sign B faces 41st Avenue as well and the railroad road This is the existing and proposed sign for the northeast corner This is the existing and proposed signs for the southeast corner as you can see the proposed signage Has reduced the size of the logo and increased the size of the text both Signs in existing and proposed are identical to each other on either corner The original master sign program was extremely limited It referenced the possibility of code enforcement and the necessity of a business license The only standards in the original permit were related to large and small letter height and logo height The proposed signs did not comply with the maximum lettering heights To accommodate periodic changes to letter and logo height staff suggested the applicant Modify their master sign program to allow more flexibility This would allow future permits to be issued over-the-counter provided that they meet the standards The amended master sign program includes maintaining existing sign locations maximum sign area Maximum sign height and width maximum combined letter height and maybe internally or externally illuminated With lettering style and cup sign color subject to community development director approval The proposed signs comply with the amended master sign program as shown on the slide With that staff recommends the Planning Commission review and approve the master sign program amendment based on the conditions of approval and findings Any questions for staff None okay, then we'll open the public hearing to anyone who wishes to speak on this item You could sign your name and identify yourself, please I'm good evening Honorable vice commissioner and vice chair and commissioners and staff. I'm mark massara and represent O'Neill and I'm here with my colleagues to thank you for your consideration and also to thank your staff For working with us on this application We're in agreement with your staff on all the proposed conditions and findings And are simply here for any questions that you might have. Thank you Okay, thank you Okay, anyone else wishing to speak? And we'll bring it back to the Commission Any comments comments comment. I'll make a motion to approve is Every emotion in a second. We're the roll call, please Chloe Commissioner Welch I Commissioner Christensen I Commissioner Wilk I and the vice chair Ruth. Hi motion carries Okay, that brings us to item C 201 Capitola Avenue This is a design permit and conditional use permit for modifications to an historic structure Introducing new windows and doors along the San Jose Avenue facade and Converting a second-story office to a residential unit located within the CV zoning district. Excuse me vice chair I believe I have to recuse myself due to proximity Okay, thank you We're dropping fast All right, thank you vice chair Ruth As you mentioned the applicant is proposing an interior remodel of a 4958 square foot historic structure that includes a new recessed entryway along San Jose Avenue and the conversion of an existing Second-story commercial space into a new residential unit in the central Village zoning district Existing commercial structure at 2 on capital Avenue as mentioned is historic It's on the southwest corner of capital Avenue in San Jose Avenue The 5,140 square foot lot is adjacent to the capital of mercantile to the south and capital of candy company to the west The structure currently contains two suites previously occupied by the Village mouse and a Thomas Kincaid gallery Capital Avenue is made up of mainly one and two-story structures with retail uses on the first story So here's the site plan Here's our first-story existing floor plan the gallery that's not included really in the project is on the lower left-hand corner there And then the Village mouse space stretched all the way from the bottom right up to the storage area on the left There's a mezzanine with a staircase that you see at the bottom that will be the staircase will be removed and the mezzanine will be modified and Then this is the existing second-story floor plan, which is above that middle section of the Village mouse space So here's our first-story proposed floor plan African is proposing an interior model remodel that will create one additional commercial tenant suite for a total of three And one new residential unit on the second story all proposed changes are within the commercial space previously occupied by the Village mouse Except for that small bit in the bottom right corner of the Thomas Kincaid gallery space the second-story Plants that indicates that there is an existing residential unit on the second floor inside the commercial space at 2 on Capitol Avenue That can be only accessed by the stairway and mezzanine inside the commercial suite Which looked a little suspicious. So when we we did a little review of the building permit history and occupancy codes and Basically, there's no proof that it had ever been a legal residential component there Which is why they are proposing a new residential unit as part of this project There is however an existing doorway at the front that they'll be utilizing to access the staircase here alongside Jose Avenue Residential uses on the first and second floor are principally permitted in the central Village zoning district The residential unit would also be converted from existing commercial floria and no additional floria is proposed Actually by replacing the mezzanine with smaller hallway the project actually reduces the floria of the structure by a hundred and sixty-two square feet The building building currently has no on-site parking the previous retail use was eligible for beach and village parking lot permits Which are only valid in the lots behind City Hall However under the Village parking permit program the new residential space would be allowed either one transferable hang tag for a part-time resident or Vacation rental or up to two stickers for full-time residents. Therefore the proposed residential unit would increase demand on village parking spaces Here's our existing elevations There's no proposed changes to the north south or west elevations. So we'll focus on the east the proposed architectural modifications Face San Jose Avenue and include a recessed entryway with doors to the new suites a new display window with an awning a new single-pane window replacing the existing three-pane second-story window and A new awning over the existing door that will become the entrance to the second-story apartment The proposed design will maintain the sharply arched fluted square streamlined columns of the historic structure Because the proposed structure a proposed project includes significant alterations to a historic structure a conditional use permit is required In order to qualify for a sequel exemption So architectural historian Leslie Dill reviewed the project for compatibility with the secretary of the interior standards And with the incorporation of several clarifications and other minor recommendations noted in her report which were Subsequently included the proposed rehabilitation project could be found to meet the secretary of the interior standards The current application does not include a request for new signage But while doing the research for this project, we discovered that a master sign program does exist for the property It is still active. So staff thought it would be it would be important to include a review of that master sign program in case future tenants wish to utilize it in order to install new awning or window signs So the master sign program consists of An awning sign so number one the things indicated is number one here are awning signs over both windows on Capitola Avenue frontage One with the T. Kincaid Identification and the other with the village mouse identification and window signs for both those windows The number two is an awning sign with village mouse identification over the window on the corner of the building at San Jose Avenue And a window directional sign for Thomas Kincaid and number three an awning sign with Thomas Kincaid identification over the entrance to the suite adjacent to San Jose Avenue The approval specified that awning signage would be living limited to five inch white lettering and that the total sign area would be limited to 5.5 square feet And that the awnings shall be maintained and replaced when deterioration has occurred to the extent that the aesthetics of the awnings are Not in keeping with the village character so based on that last part and due to the deteriorated nature of the existing awnings with their previous awning signs painted over but still visible through the paint as shown here Staff has included condition number 26, which requires the awnings to be replaced prior to a planning final So that staff recommends the planning commission review and approve project 19 0 375 based on the conditions approval and findings any questions for staff on the awnings the Kincaid Gallery awning is different from the other ones But in that one picture I Think when it was about the master sign program, they were all the same Is there a requirement or consideration or has there been to make them all the same? I didn't see anything about that Okay, so I mean you could add that condition to this project if you like, okay Okay, no questions in it's a public hearing and we'll open it up. Is there any motion to speak? Good evening. Honorable members of the planning commission. I'm Dennis Norton. I represent WRR Properties and the administrator of those properties. Rick Avila is also here for the answer questions This has been a vacant store for a year and a half and it is a prime location in the village it's been fairly damaged in the village to leave a vacancy like this so long and The conclusions we came to is is there was a there's a lot of demand out there to put a restaurant in here We brought we can't make the requirements the parking requirements hold us from doing any kind of use besides retail there Now the exception that would be as if it was a small five-seat wine bar like was just put in down the street So it came to conclusion that the way to get this building rented is to actually split the building in half and so what you're seeing here, that's why we had to add the side entrance to this and That creates a secondary unit to the to the back part and then the front front part of the property bit So more than likely it's going to go to two different types of retail in there The the building in the back is the art gallery that will stay as it is although it's considered That the whole building is historic In other words the even the gallery in the back because the connected building was considered in in the review of of this property We agree with all the conditions approval We're really anxious to get some attendant in that building. I'm sure the neighbors are too We're not changing the footprint at all the upstairs the upstairs Unit those actually been there for many years. The difference was is you had to walk through The old village mouse to get to it and it's probably used as their office But there's a kitchen in a in a bathroom. We're up there So we're not creating new space anywhere in the building this we do is we create a separate entrance So there could be a small rental apartment upstairs in that building We're not changing the footprint of the building There is actually an open space in the back of the building that may be used for instance If the back unit is taken by a yoga studio, it could be used as that kind of use for an outside area so It's it's a It's it's historic. I think in our minds architecturally it's questionable But we're not changing anything on the outside with exception of indenting that one area where we have display to display windows and We appreciate your approval on this project any questions Dennis Dennis on that on ink over the Kincaid gallery Do you intend to replace that along with the other ones as the same or still the same styles So they have a their own identity we could well, it's a We can go either way on the thing but that what we'd like to do is the one awning that's over the new door there The left we would like to match that to the rest of the building because it's in the same Business format we weren't planning on removing that that awning but if it's a wish of planning commission we can make that work Yeah, I think I'll leave that up to the rest of the commission the other thing The windows on the on the east elevation Just on the scale of your drawing they appear to be closer to the sidewalk the bottom of the windows than the other existing windows is that true or is it just the The one to the left Mick is right at the sidewalk line. That's an existing wall But what happens the one to excuse me the one to the left the one to the right where it has a transcend window above it The transcend window is already there. It's above what we're doing. We're pushing back So you can put an entry door to the left in the right there. So that window. Yes is set back from the rather others But I mean the distance from the sidewalk to the bottom of the way There's six feet in height and from an eight-foot header. There'll be two feet off the ground Okay, is that the same as the other existing windows? Yes, if you look at the look at the front ones over here Okay, it just looks different on your drawing Yeah, I think they're meant to be the same. They're the same height and elevation all the way across the top. Okay, okay, and about the apartment If Dennis probably remembers Joanne McGowan lived up there for Decades, I'm surprised. It's not grandfathered in because that started back and Karen could probably verify back in the 60s, right? So yeah So it's gutted but it there there wasn't for years a apartment up there And and we're just putting it back to what it was and making all make it at all to code today That's what our intention is. We're gonna add to ad you ad a bathrooms downstairs So it'll serve us the the two the two all three of the downstairs tenants So we're adding facilities that are bringing this building up to its code today Oh, it's been vacant for a long time if this helps to get it rented that'd be great I think it will. Thank you. Okay. Thanks Dennis anyone else wishing to speak on this item Okay, see no one will close the public portion bring it back to the Commission for discussion any comments No, I'm I'm Happy to see that in some work done so we can get this thing rented I actually I liked the architectural design of it Dennis I know he said doesn't have a lot but it's maybe it goes back from the days and past remembering but Yeah, I'm in favor of it and would make a motion to move forward with the project as staff recommend recommended Comment second. Okay. Have a motion in a second then Roll call please Commissioner Welch. Hi Commissioner Christiansen. Hi vice chair Ruth. Hi motion carries. Good luck Good maybe we'll get that hole in the village filled now Okay, that brings us to directors report No directors no report any communications from commissioners none Okay, meeting is adjourned