 My friends, hello and welcome to the July 21st Capitol of Fame finish meeting with the coordinates of California, San Francisco, and the city of New York, the city of Massachusetts, the public commission of the staff on meaning of the review, and our final words is to have the two options participate. Information on the joint meaning of the review or a line-line or mobile phone, along with how to put a comment during the review tonight is available on the website of capicella.org, on the slides shown now, and on the public media agenda. And as always, if you need to see me cast live on charter communication, see the TV channel 8 and capicella, and 25 for our Santa Cruz County. If you're being recorded, if you want to play this on the following on the Friday at 11 p.m., you can also use live on YouTube or on our city website. Tonight, our technicians are Victor Herbert, Victor Kahn, and Eric Jeffenson, with the various preliminary thoughts of the way we are ready to do the review tonight. We'll have a real talk with you. Yes, please. Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Westman, Commissioner Rook, Commissioner Rook. I was muted here. Okay, see you later. Okay, we'll now move on to new businesses in all communications, are there any items of new business that all communications wish to bring up? I actually think there might be all communications. I'd like to bring that up completely because I noticed this meeting was advertised through the Santa Cruz Sentinel. I guess because of the motion as we were talking about a hotel. And if there are people online, I would like to make it clear that this hotel we're talking about is not a First Street mall hotel, but is a different hotel near the quality in by the post office. So if you're worried about those other hotels, don't worry that we're not discussing that this meeting. So with that, are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Yes, we'll note, there, the only, we had added public comment that was made. There was an email received, I think around like 4 p.m. from the hotel, from a neighbor for item 6D, and then also a response from the hotel owner following that. So there have been two additional public comments made since the packet was released for item 6D, 720 Hill Street. So are we gonna add those to the agenda? Are we gonna go over those when that item comes up? I just wanna have it in the record that we did receive two public comment. Okay, very good. Any other additions or deletions? Okay, let's move on to public comments. This is an opportunity now for the public to weigh in on items that are not on the agenda. You have three minutes to speak on any items that are not on the agenda. Are there any Zoom calls with the raised hands or texts or emails coming in? Katie, you're on mute. Sorry about that, and my dog is barking. I apologize for that as well. There are no hands raised from the attendees on Zoom and I'm checking the public comment email. And I'm gonna have to ask Planner Sassanto to look at his version, because for some reason my public comment email is not showing up. So, Sean, can you tell me if you see any public comment? We have not received any new comments since the ones you mentioned already. Okay, thank you. Very good, then. Are there any commissioner comments? Hearing none, let's see it. Do I do check to see if I can do the hands raised thing? I don't see any hands raised there. So we'll move on then to staff comments. The staff, I do have one comment. Our city council is going to be going back to in-person meetings in August and the Planning Commission has the option to start in-person meetings starting September 1st. So I would like some feedback on that and moving to, it'll be hybrid. There'll be a set of guidance, the guidance document that comes out regarding hybrid meetings, but that would be published by that August meeting and the Planning Commission can go live in-person September 1st. So could we also go live August at the same time? No, you would want to check it out first. I'd like them to be the, to test it out first because they have IT staff on site when they have their meetings. Okay, do you want to just have a show of hands then as to who would like to, or a roll call as to who would like to start hybrid meetings in September? I don't know if it's not on the agenda, but we could say this, we're adding this to the agenda. Yeah, we- Are there any comments with regards to this by the commissioners? Anybody wish to argue one way or the other? This is Commissioner Westman. If nothing changes, you know, COVID-wise then I would be happy to go back to meeting in-person. Does anybody disagree with that? I hear, I see no hands raised, I hear no comments. It's, I think you got your answer, Katie. We'd like to, we'd also like to go hybrid and start in September. Commissioner Newman has a second. No, acceptable. That's acceptable, thank you. Okay. Let's see, do we have any minutes to approve? I don't think so, nor do we have anything, oh yes, or consent items, none. Okay, very good. So let's finally move on to item, oh, what are we at? Item six, public hearings. Item number one is the blanket, item A, blanket, CDP and design permit for the street dining. Katie, do we have a staff presentation? We do. I'm gonna ask Sean to turn off his presentation and I will share my screen. He's just protecting you. Okay, can you see my screen? Yes. Okay, so thank you. I'm sorry, my dog is being very naughty. I have a Zoom notification up, okay, I got it down. Okay, so tonight before you, we have a blanket coastal development permit and a design permit for prototype street dining decks. I'm going to give you an overview of the program and what the short history of what's happened. And then we have Michael Arnone and associates here this evening to give you an update on the design. After that, we have a couple of key questions that I have for the planning commission with the design moving forward and looking for an approval tonight on the blanket coastal development permit. However, if you feel it's not ready at this time, we can always continue this item to the next meeting. Here we go. So for the background in December 9th, 2021, the city council adopted an outdoor dining ordinance. The coastal commission did a conditional approval on July 14th. The two items that they modified during their conditional approval was to require recertification. So after three years, we need to take all of the coastal development permits that are issued for the outdoor dining to city council for review and ensure that they're in compliance and there's no impacts to coastal resources and coastal access. The second change the coastal commission made was to remove the requirement for dedicated funds. Originally there was a requirement for 50% of the parking funds to go towards coastal access. We drafted a document stating how much we actually spend on coastal access. And they found that we're going above and beyond and took that requirement away. So on June 23rd, the city council accepted the coastal commission's new conditions. And just last week, the coastal commission certified our ordinance. So it is now part of our LCP. So quick reminder of how this works. So tonight you have the prototype design in front of you that you'll be reviewing. The planning commission will review it and essentially approve a blanket coastal development and design permit for the prototype design. Once that's approved, restaurants may utilize the prototype design. It will be at no cost and no additional public review process. However, they will need to get a building permit and an encroachment permit will be required and they'll also start paying, we'll pay rent on the spaces utilized. The other option that businesses have is to do a custom design. The custom design, they can submit a custom design to the planning department it requires a coastal development from planning commission and then also a building permit would follow. So how do we, where are the events that brought this item before you for the first time? And Jennifer from Mike Larno and Associates presented. And the planning commission gave us feedback on the design. This is all in the staff report. I don't wanna read through the whole list, but all the items that were brought up by planning commission have been addressed in our new design. One of the main points, a couple of like highlights of that evening was there was a preference for the concrete planters. So that's included in the design and that was because of the weight of the planters and how it could have a double function for safety with cars. And then the other was just to, we took away the wooden fencing option and just been introduced two different colors of the railings and also an all planter option. Sorry. And then looks like I'm missing a slide. I apologize. But we also met with our local businesses and in meeting with the local businesses, there was a lot of feedback of wanting to utilize some of the, to not be held to the standard of some of the furniture designs within the prototype design. There was also comments about, they felt like there was ways to design the deck in which more seating could become available through creating like a bar space around the edge, which if you've gone out and seen the Capitola Wine Bar, they've introduced that to their temporary dining now. So, and there were several other comments made from the businesses that were also included in your packet. So next, the updates are here. So the concrete planters, there's now three different color options included in the prototype design. A wood planter option was added with a countertop bar and a built-in bench. That will be introduced tonight by Michael Arnone. That I am hoping to get feedback from the planning commission with the two options. I'm looking for feedback of do you wanna stick with only one or do you wanna allow two different options in the village? They added stanchions with heavy duty ropes to create that separation between the street dining decks and the sidewalk. We checked in, the businesses asked, does it comply with ABC regulations? And it does to have those stanchions. And then for ADA, we need six feet of clearance to get onto a dining deck. So that's included as well. Added options for the metal railings, both aluminum and black remove that solid wood option. And we added an option of planters only. And another thing that came up was adding the angled parking option. Some businesses said they would rather utilize the bicycle and lube option. So therefore they'd like to max out the angled parking. So there's a new option for angled parking. And then we also received comments from the businesses that the metal seats may be hot. And so there's now a third option by BFM seating for synthetic teak and aluminum frame chairs and tables. And there's a standard heaters, the heaters that are most common are now in the plan. So tonight when we after Michael's presentation, I would like feedback from the planning commission of whether or not we should include the wood planter option and also put back on the furniture. I do think it's important that we have a high standard for the furniture that is in these locations. Over the past three summers, it's been a pandemic. We understand that the furniture is not perfect when we have a temporary situation. But moving forward, this design is really going to be part of our beautiful village. And I think having a high standard to make sure that the furniture for the future really can withstand the elements is important. But we did get a lot of feedback from the businesses of wanting a little more flexibility there. So I'd like input from the planning commission on that. I have it conditioned currently limiting to three different manufacturers that are included in the prototype. However, I also said, I put in a condition that if they want an alternative, they could take that to planning commission for approval. So I look forward to that discussion. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mike Larnone and associates and I'll stop my sharing. And I apologize for my dog. Sorry. Hi, everybody, commissioners and public and staff. Katie did a really good job of introducing what we were going to show. I'm going to let Jennifer grab the screen because she's going to kind of lead the presentation. So Jennifer, you want to just start to share the screen. Again, as Katie mentioned, we took the feedback from the last planning commission meeting. We took the feedback from the people, the restaurant owners and the wine bar people and the pub and everybody. And we tried to address the majority of the comments based on our design experience. So there are some changes. And I think we've addressed, again, most of the things that we had concerns about or folks had concerns about. So I think I'll probably interject some things as Jennifer gets into the presentation, but I'll just let her start on this and then I may hop in here. First thing I was going to mention is the stanchions we talked about and one of the commissioners wanted something a little more heavy duty or secure. And the reason that we went back to the stanchion with kind of like what you see in a bank to steer people through the maze of the bank is because it is very flexible in terms of cleaning, in terms of how we change the access to a certain part of the, to the parklet. Also, it just has to sit on top of that grate as you kind of see at the bottom of the pager. If it gets something really serious, it has to be constructed inside onto the wood. And of course, that makes this even smaller. So we were trying to maximize the seating capacity and that's kind of how we ended up with the, you know, going back to that stanchion thing. So anyway, with that, Jennifer, if you want to go through this, that'd be great. Sure, sure. Good evening everyone. Yeah, so we'll start with the first option for the angled parking places. So this option for the perimeter, you can see there are concrete planters alternating with this dash line represents the metal railing. So similar to what you guys saw the first time, but this time it's all concrete planters and railings. The circles down here with the dash line are the, are the stanchions and rope that Mike was just talking about. And we kind of reduced the size of the wheel stop. I think there was some concern last time about how would a bike actually get in there. So before they were a little longer, about six feet. So these are kind of reduced down to four. Let's see, second option is the perimeter is just all concrete planters and no railings. And the advantage to that would be pretty simple to install and a really nice sturdy barrier around, you know, around the perimeter, same layout with the portable stanchions. And then the third option is the one Katie was asking for feedback about this is a new option where the perimeter or part of the perimeter is a wood planter, which is this area right here with an option of like an integrated bench and a bar height counter. So it offers a little more flexibility and seating if there, if restaurant owners wanted to add a longer table here or something like that might be a little bit more space efficient. And again, same pedestrian traffic control stanchions there. And then this is the elevation of the first two options the concrete planter and metal railing for just all concrete planters on the perimeter. And this is the wood planter option kind of a section elevation view and also a little bit of a 3D view that kind of gives you an idea conceptually of how it would look. This is a bar height countertop and then our or a built-in bench. And then the next two options, Katie talked about this in the introduction if restaurant owners were to do the in lieu parking place or bike parking, we could kind of change the layout of the platform so that it matches or conforms to this parking striping which gives a little bit more square foot area for that dining deck and more table options. This particular option is a really simple perimeter of just railing and concrete planters. And then this option uses that wood planter to create a really enclosed, pretty custom built-in bench option and bar seating option. And then moving to the parallel parking, components are pretty much the same as the angled parking just obviously in a different layout that's not as deep. Here we're using the wheel stops more to protect from people parallel parking there. So we're going back to the longer wheel stop still have the portable pedestrian traffic control. And then this would be the perimeter option of all concrete planters. Perimeter option along the street of a wood planter with a built-in countertop, I'm sorry, bar height counter and movable table seating and then elevation, railing and planters or just planters. And then moving on to the platform itself, options for the decking would be natural like a redwood decking or a composite wood decking. This is kind of a schematic of the section how the platform integrates with the storm, the gutter and gutter and grate and sidewalk and roadway. Kind of long here on the bottom. And I think you guys saw this detail last time this is kind of how the steel trench grate and it meets the curb at the sidewalk and the platform. And then along the perimeter, a steel perforated steel, something that allows water to drain under the deck. These are the railing options, a metal railing either aluminum color or a black. These are the concrete planters that we're recommending. This photo shows planters at an outdoor dining deck in Los Gatos and you can actually go there and see them in person if you're interested. It's in Katie's first stop report, the address. New bike rack just to accommodate more bikes. Wheel stop, these are the portable stanchions and rope suggested dining furnishings. This company EMU has a lot of different options that are pretty widely used. And they're in a pretty easy price point for people to afford, which is kind of why we went, we suggested them, but they have a lot of different options in terms of style and color, pretty good lead times. This particular set is available through like an online web store, it's called something really simple for people to order. And also same with this one. This is the option with a synthetic teak tabletop and then also on the chairs because people were concerned about them getting metal, getting too hot. Umbrella's that you saw before, a standard heater patio heater. Jennifer, can I interrupt you right there? One second about the heaters. Yeah. You know, there was a, there was a period over the spring. When one of the, one of the restaurants down there allowed these heaters, the, the deflector on the top was bent and cocked at a crazy angle. And it just looked really trashy. They had a couple of them like that. I'm wondering if it would make more sense to not allow this type of heater, but to allow the kind that are enclosed in glass and, and pyramids, pyramidal shape to tall pyramid shape. Yeah. I think we could offer that option. I guess that's kind of up to staff too. If Katie wants to comment. We actually went out and I just assessed what the restaurants have and the majority of them have the standard heater that we've shown in the plan. But you are correct. There's a, there's some of them are, are looking really weathered. And I think at that point, we, you know, the conditions that are tied to the prototype design is that they, if they are looking weathered, they're going to have the standard heater heater. But if it's not, if it's not, if it's not, if it's not, if it's not, if it's not, if it's not tied to the prototype design is that they, if they are looking weathered and not looking fresh, they would need to be replaced. So. Well, why don't we just require that right now? If the, if the commission approves that because we're going to all this trouble to create these really nice designs. But yeah. We're allowing heaters that can look pretty shabby after. We're allowing heaters that can look pretty shabby after that. We're allowing heaters that can look pretty shabby after that. Okay. Outdoor dining goes through September 15th, but after that, everything would have to comply with the new. They'd have to have, you know, invest into this new prototype. And be in compliance. Okay. I'll bring that up when we discuss it. At the commission level then. Okay. The string lights and poles. I think you guys saw those last time. Okay. So in terms of plants. This is the suggested plant list and people, you know, in this column, they can kind of see, you know, choose according to what sun exposure they have sent. You know, sun shade. And we might be able to reduce this. I know that there was a concern that a lot of the plants aren't looking so great. So, you know, there are a few succulents. That don't require a lot of pruning and things. That might be a way to kind of. Make sure everything looks. Looks good and is easy care. But we have quite a few succulents in the list. So. And I think that's everything. I'll add in a couple of things. Again, the, you know, the designs that we tried to do were based on a certain number of different species. The dining, you know, things that are out there now very greatly. You know, some of them, like on the cap out by the brewery. They have two parallel spaces and we're representing that on, I guess on page five. Along the Esplanade, it's quite different. There's, you know, they kind of are splitting up a couple. So there's Mr. Toots has like one and a half spaces. I believe, you know, roughly has four and a half spaces. So they kind of share, you know, maybe the entries between that half space. The sand bar, I think has three and a half. The tie place has two. I'm San Jose. The wine bar has one and a half. The hot dog place has one and a half. I believe Caruso's has two. So they're all kind of different. And so when we get into the, you know, construction drawings for these, if we, if we take it there, we have to be very site specific in terms of how many spaces they actually want and how the design is going to fit into those spaces. So there's, you know, there's some work to do here, but I mean, this, I think hopefully gives you an idea of, of what we're shooting for in terms of the aesthetics of, you know, what we want the thing to look like. And, you know, well, what the city, you know, wants the outdoor dining areas to look like. So. We're happy to answer any questions that concludes the presentation this evening. So this is commissioner Westman. I have a couple of questions. I wonder if Mr. are known could, they're introducing this wood element, the wood decks, the wood outside. And I wonder if he could talk a little bit more about, you know, what kind of wood that's going to be, are they going to be painted? Are they going to be stained? You know, how do we guarantee that, you know, somebody's going to use high quality materials and building something like this. And also we went with the concrete planners because we felt they provided more safety. And how does the, this wood option compared to the concrete planners as far as safety. Yeah. I mean, the, the brew pub on cap have has, you know, recently put in an all wooden perimeter of plants of planters. And it, you know, looks nice. They painted the wood. I'm not sure what type of wood they used. I think it's red wood. And they painted it to match the front of their building. And it's, you know, it's totally self-enclosed in terms of, you know, security. I mean, I'll answer that part of the question. But first, you know, it's difficult for me to say, I mean, if somebody's coming in and just happens to be driving five miles an hour and they just steer into it, I think the wood thing would be fine. If somebody has the intent of, you know, running into the thing, certainly the concrete would be more protection for the people that are in there. So, I mean, it really depends on the nature of what happens. And I can't predict that, you know, nor can you. I think the wood, you know, is a viable option. I think the concrete certainly has a different look, but I think both, you know, would be a fairly good barrier. I mean, you're, you're, the worst cases of somebody deliberately goes into this thing. And I don't know if we have any way to protect anybody at that point. But if it's just somebody who's on their phone, who happens to steer, you know, not pay attention to where they're going and they slide into the thing, the wood will alert them, you know, of what's happening. So, I mean, that's probably Susan, the best explanation that I can make on that. In terms of the decking, I think the, you know, the composite material that will hold up with the weather wouldn't need to be painted, wouldn't need to be stained, doesn't need, you know, wouldn't splinter. That would probably be the best choice. And again, you know, one of the big comments that we heard when we met or talked to the restaurant folks was the cost of all this. So, you know, we're trying to weigh or trying to provide options that are, you know, affordable at the same time, you know, meet the aesthetics of the city. So if they do use redwood, then, you know, it probably would be stained. If they use, you know, again, that's a topic that the, you know, the staff could comment on and we could review that. But yeah, we'll talk about it later. It just seems to me that the wood opens up a whole area that we really haven't addressed who's going to decide what color they should be painted, who's going to decide, you know, whether they should be stained, or whether they should be painted. So that's what I'm going to look. And for me personally, I would disagree with you. I think the color that's gotten painted on Capitol Avenue is, is not a particularly good choice for our town and how it works. So we can talk about that later when the commission discusses this. Commissioner Newman. Okay. Well, this is obviously a great improvement over what we have there. The architect and his staff, but my questions are for staff and they're totally off point. So I apologize in advance. But my question is, if I want to open a new restaurant in the village with indoor seating, do I have to satisfy any parking requirements? So if you. Owned a retail shop or an office within the city. And you wanted to convert that to restaurant. You would be limited to 160 square feet of seating area, or area in which your customers could be within. So if you were to open a new restaurant, you would be limited to one hundred and sixty square feet of seating area, or area in which your customers could be within. So that, that's the limitation there before having to provide parking. If you had an existing restaurant and wanted to do outdoor seating. You are, there's, we'll talk about outdoor seating within your property first. And under our new code, you're allowed to do an addition. You're allowed to expand your property. And under our new code, you're allowed to do an addition. You're allowed to expand your restaurant or provide outdoor dining as long as it's not. And I'm going to ask. Planner Fray like to correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as it's not greater than 20% of the existing. Floor area of your restaurant. Then you're allowed to expand up to 20%. And that can be either within expanding into. Your space within your existing building or within outdoor dining on your property. The third. Part of this is within our street dining and sidewalk dining. There is no requirement for outdoor for parking that's tied to the new street dining ordinance. And another portion of this just to put one more layer on it is that the governor passed a law, which I think goes through 2025. I think it's December of 2025. That cities do not. It maybe cannot require parking for outdoor dining. They're exempt through 2025. So it's a sunset clause. So if we were to see an outdoor dining application, we would definitely want to make sure that it's reviewed after the sunset. So for, for different answers for you commissioner Newman. I won't waste time on this because I know we have a lot to do. I was going to kind of go through the history of the, the coastal commission and the parking requirements and all the things that we've done in the last 40 years or so, but that was all has been exploded here, but it is what it is. So sorry. I will comment that when we submitted the street dining to the coastal commission, they, it seems like they've had a major shift in their thinking about parking spaces related to outdoor dining and that outdoor dining is a form of something that the public can enjoy. And it's providing another opportunity for those who maybe don't want to go to the beach, but would like to sit and eat and take in the view of a coastal area. So they, they were supportive of that notion. They did really, they thought it was great that we had the bicycle parking included so that there was some mitigation, but they are moving away. There's a shift happening away from the car. So. Okay. So I have a question as well. A couple of them. First of all, as a part of the conditions of this activity is going to be with regards to storage, like, you know, junk storage, propane tanks, that kind of thing. Are they, is there going to be conditions that make sure that that is not kept in the outdoor dining area? We can add that condition. I know that we discussed that before. The other question was you eliminated the wooden railing, but I thought when we discussed it last time, it was like, we didn't like the solid wooden fence, but I didn't think we objected to wooden railing. Am I? Is that your recollection? I think it was that you didn't like the comments were about having that solid. So we just did away with that railing altogether. Okay. Okay. Well, I guess I don't have any objection. My, but my finally, my real comment, however, has to do with, with plants. And the reason I bring this up is because I think because of all the exceptions and all the options, we're slowly getting away from any notion of a common theme or a common look that capital has. I know we're trying to go high quality, but and this might be only my issue. But it's, you know, I was hoping that when, at least when you went into the village, you would say, Oh, okay. This is the, this is the common theme of capital, albeit, you know, whether the, what the planters look like or the railing looks like, it's like, okay, you feel you're in capital because there's a, there's something, I don't know what it is, but it would be something that would be consistent with all the outdoor dining spaces so that it would be blended all together. And my thought today is when we're talking about plants, there's a huge listing of plants. And at least in the village, wouldn't it be possible to like have a, a plant like we're doing nothing, but Myers ferns and all of these planters. And that's what looks great. I'm just thinking back a long time ago, I visited Victoria Canada and they had all of these, these light posts with the planters and they all had the exact same flowers in them. And it was gorgeous when they all came in bloom. And I was like, well, okay, maybe, maybe that's what, maybe that's what we do with capital. That's the common theme is we all have these beautiful such and such plants. And I would think that the village at least is consistent in terms of light and shade and heat and all that and moisture that we could probably pull that off. So my question, I guess to staff or the, the presenters are, is that, is that a practical idea from a standpoint of, yeah, the environment is consistent and yeah, you can have a plant or maybe two plants that would, that we could, we could impress upon the applicants when they, when they plant their planters. This is a prototype. So if the commission so chose to limit it to certain plant types that's to further limit it because we have, I don't know how many Jennifer, I don't know how many plants we have currently, there's quite a few. So yes, that is, that's definitely an option, whatever you put in these plans or what we'll have to be followed. Okay. So there's no technical reason and why we couldn't now opt for that that you can come up with. Yeah. I think that. Yeah. Having a sun option and a couple of sun options, one or two and a couple of shade options. Yeah. I think that would work. I'll, you know, I'll interject, you know, I think that's part of the beauty of the village and, and of Capitol in general is the unique nature of the architecture. We have all kinds of different styles. Paradise beach grill is much different than, than Zeldos and that strip of buildings. I think the, you know, the outdoor dining should reflect, you know, the style of the building and not necessarily be homogenous throughout the village. I mean, I, that's my take on it, Peter. I mean, we, everybody has their opinion and I appreciate that. I think the, the design itself for each place should be, you know, it can be unique in and of itself, but I mean, the architecture in the village, you know, from the Venetian to, you know, some of the old older buildings and certainly some of the newer places that are, you know, being built now are, are what make Capitol real unique. So I see the same, that same reflection in the park where it's personally. All right. That's a fair comment. Okay. Are there any other questions. Of staff. Okay. With that, then we can move on to what? Public comments. I see a reef dog is in, has a hand up. And I'm going to. Hey, hey, Katie. Hi. My, my comment on plants specifically is that. You know, I feel like there's a sustainability. You know, growth that we need to keep going. The plants should be. Definitely. You know, low water content. I believe that, that any plants that, that are in the park, that are in the park, that are in the park, that are surrounding the park lit. Be, be in, in, in motion of, of, of providing. Green. And, and beauty. But we are, are still in. We're still in a water. You know, retention. So we need to, we need to protect that. You know, We need to protect that. So therefore, you know, for, for instance, for my planners, they are definitely a low water content. They're sustainable. They're green. They're beautiful. They have grown. Certainly I don't want to rip them out. So. You know, I just hope that the city and the planning. Take that in consideration as we, that, that are considered for the planner boxes. Okay. Thank you. Katie, any other comments? Looking to see if there are any other hands up. I see Linda Smith. Linda, you can speak now. You'll have to unmute. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. So I'm going to be, I'm going to try and be pretty brief here. You guys have heard a lot of my comments in the past. I've heard a lot of my comments in the past. And I still believe that indoor dining areas are going to be less used than they used to be. I believe that the requirement for having more spacious dining areas as long as COVID is out there is going to continue to be a big deal. And the street dining decks can bring that to Capitola. I know that this commission doesn't really support the implemented implementation of the outdoor street dining decks and I think that the prototype design and the path that we're on is probably not going to yield. What I would consider to be an adequate implementation with the restaurant owners that we have. I don't think they've been involved enough in this process to really help get creative on the solution. So I just have three thoughts. I'd like to leave with you. Dictating the selection of firm furnishings really limits a lot of the businesses opportunity to brand their space. You've got several restaurants that have outdoor spaces already. And dictating the kind of furniture that they can use in one outdoor space is going to really hodge podge their look and feel. And some of those are outside where they can be seen. And some of them are over on the creek side where they won't be seen side by side, but it's still very different. So I'm going to leave with you. I'm going to leave with you. Two in all of the information that I saw, there were only two manufacturers that were listed. Now I understand there's a third that's there and I haven't looked at that one at all. And they may offer something different. Second thought is the term consistent with prototype design should really be defined so that it's clear what changes can be made without further PC involvement with the commission. So I'm going to leave with you. I think that what I saw has to do with furniture placement within the space. I'm assuming that that's a suggestion and that the restaurant tours will really have the freedom to configure their site, the furniture within their site. That meets their requirements best. And for example, if they. Chose to have. The entire space dedicated to bicycle parking, they could still do that if their site warranted that. And I think what I heard Mike say was that site specifics could still be worked out and would still be considered consistent with the prototype design. And finally, I've been down there at night and several of the restaurants that are really interested in continuing with this outdoor dining. They kind of act like wind tunnels. And there's no allowance in the prototype for any kind of coverings or windbreaks. The standard heaters, I heard the discussion on the heaters that Mick brought up and there is a configuration of heater down there where the design of the heater includes movable parts of the round top. And there are a couple of different places that have them. And I believe the function is that they can direct the heat down because that type of heater, when you're in a windy condition and there's no cover above it, does not really offer an adequate amount of heat in the winter time. The glass heaters, they're gorgeous to look at and psycho emotionally when you look at a flame, you think you get warmer because you're looking at a flame, but those heaters do not put off nearly the same amount of heat that the standard here that you've got listed does. And so, since we're talking about transitioning right at the end of the season and going into the winter, the timing is such that I don't know if there is an allowance for this, but if you could allow the take down of the temporary stuff in September, but allow them to put up the new stuff in April or May at the beginning of the next season, rather than putting it in now and then having it sit over the summer. So, I think that's where it's going to get weather worn and will be idle except for those great days that we have where we don't have inclement weather, that maybe you could use the parking spaces in the interim as parking spaces and just give the owners, the restaurant guys, time so that they don't have to just sit with that brand new stuff during the most idle part of the year. And so, I think that's where we're going to get that encouragement for the restaurants to participate in this program because I believe it does bring a vitality. And if we can make it so that, and maybe we plan more night events that would draw people out into these areas. A lot of the restaurants have large indoor areas that when it's inclement weather and there's cold evenings and, you know, there's a lot of people out there. And so, I think that's where we're going to get that encouragement. And again, the tables have been getting crowded in there again. Now that we're seeing COVID numbers rise. I think the winter time is a time when we could really help our restaurants out and we could really bring some vibrancy. If this program works. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Linda. Katie, anyone else? I believe that you break it up. I can't hear you. I don't know if you have any comments on Zoom, but as Sean, can you tell us if there are any comments, written comments? Yes, I do see one comment from a Bob Lashley. And can you do the auto read on that for us? I don't know if I have it set up to do that, but would you like me to display it or, or I can read it out loud if you'd like. Sure. If you want to display it and read it out loud, that'd be great. Sure. This is from Bob Lashley. As I'm listening to the discussion around the deck proposals. I realized my first question was probably answered in the previous meetings that discussed the top, this topic. As parking spaces are re-designated as dining areas for restaurants, the amount of parking decreases in the immediate area adjacent to the vendor. In the city designating additional parking capacity somewhere nearby, in the city designating additional parking space, in the municipal parking structures or new structures, et cetera. A more immediate drop off area near the re-designated parking spots where elderly or larger groups can be dropped off or picked up prior to the driver seeking out parking elsewhere. Any answers to the above, to the above are appreciated. Thanks, Bob. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lashley. Thank you very much. Thank you. We did talk about this. Is there a quick answer that you could post? Sure. So I will say that right now there is a new parking committee that's formed in Capitola as we're going through. Our discussions on outdoor dining. The council and planning commission raised concerns for, we can't just be looking at only the outdoor dining. We can't just be looking at the outdoor dining. We can't just be looking comprehensively and look at our permit programs and. Our 20 minute drop off area. So we are looking, we do have a new parking committee that's been formed and they are looking at things holistically. I will share these comments with our public works director. So he's aware. And this is something they can look out. Member of that parking committee. I got to say that's a, that's a great idea. I see reef dog. Deli has their hand up again. They did make prior public comments up to you. Chair. We don't have a lot of people raising their hands. It just, let's, let's just warn him that this is not a discussion, but we'll let him weigh in. Go ahead. I believe you unmute yourself. Yeah. I'll go, I'll go ahead and pass. Not waste any more time. Go ahead and go back to the board. Thank you. I was just going to interject about Linda's comment about the furniture. And, and yes, it isn't, that's not how we're requiring people to have their tables and chairs. It was only useful to just kind of give you an idea of, you know, how it could possibly be set up for each configuration. As long as we have a, you know, an ADA, you know, space available. But otherwise, you know, if we had left them all blank, we talked about that, but then, you know, I think it's easier here, you know, the way we did it just to kind of envision, to help you envision what it could look like, but certainly that, you know, they're allowed to put the furnishings and the tables, however they want. All right. Are we ready to move on to planning commission deliberation? Okay. Who would like to start? Susan, I'm going to assume your hand was up from last time. So, you know, let Mick Ruth. Yeah. It was up from last time. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Peter. I have just a few things. I know I raised the issue in a previous meeting about curb height in relation to the crown of the road. And I know we're requiring, we're requiring the decks to be a curb height, but in one of the renderings, it does show the deck level with a lesser space between the road and the, and the top of the deck. So have there been any actual measurements been made in the various locations where people want these decks, Katie? So, so there have been, and we've spoken with Michael about this. Once we figure out who wants to participate in, we're going to move to our building plan stage next, but we don't want to go to that stage until we know that there's going to be a participant. So that will be the next phase is once we know where, you know, which restaurant would like to participate, what the slope is in front of their restaurant, the height of the sidewalk versus the angles within the street, then we'll, Michael will design to that standard. But at this point, we're not going to move forward with any building plants until we know we have a participant. Okay. So it's not, it's not a hard and fast condition that the deck be flushed with the top of the curb or it is. We're going to have to work with special circumstances because you're absolutely correct that they're not all the same out there. So, okay. I'm assuming that bark bike parking at those places, if they decide to use that option is public bike parking. Okay. And then I wanted to bring up the heaters again. Most of the outdoor restaurants that I've eaten that in the last year, year and a half, two years, two years ago, three years ago, three years ago, two years ago, two years ago, two years ago, two years ago, two years ago, two years ago, two years ago. And so those of them all have the pyramidal type heaters now, just for aesthetic reasons. And they're just easier to operate. And so if the commission is willing, I'd like to see a condition that those type of heaters are required. Just because they are more aesthetically pleasing, to require some aesthetically pleasing heaters. Can I interject, Mick, because on that topic, it just occurred to me, well, what about overhead electrical heaters? Those are also very warm and not as obtrusive as taking a floor space. Is that something that's on the list of possibilities? Well, I didn't think of those, but the only time I've ever seen those is when they're being hung for some type of rafter. Right. Good point. Okay. Well, my other thing is, Peter, I agree with you on the narrowing the type of plants down. Mike mentioned the uniqueness of the variation of the building styles down there, but I see this as part of the streetscape and streetscapes are usually uniform. And I think it would really add to the overall beauty of the village if it were uniform and there were some continuity between the various outdoor places with the same plants and colorful things that grow. So I would support you and your efforts to do that. But I would like to get some feedback on the heaters from the council, because I would like to see that be made a condition to get rid of some of those ugly, old-fashioned heaters down there. Well, let's take a moment then and weigh in on that. I'll say that I have no objection to specifying a particular type of heater. And I think of all the things that you could allow an owner to have some variation on that would be one of them. Does anybody else want to weigh in on that particular item? This is Commissioner Westman. I could agree with Commissioner Ruth. I think, you know, designating the type of heater and having the one that has glass on it works for me. And I very much agree with Commissioner Ruth's comment about, you know, these are, this is really what they call street furniture going in. These are like street fixtures. And I do think it's important for us to have some consistency just as, you know, every city I've ever known has had consistency in its type of street furniture and benches that it puts out. Okay, Courtney. I completely agree with Commissioner Westman and Commissioner Ruth. I took a trip to Los Gatos and I'm familiar with the concrete planters and the rail, the picture in the report or the package depicted. And it's, I mean, they have taken this really hard. It's just, everything is very consistent. There's, I think there's stanchions for overhead canopy and then there's the concrete planters plus the, they're pouring concrete, you know, pads for the outdoor seating. So, I mean, they're fully committed to keeping these parklets there, but it just really looks uniform, consistent and intentional. And I think that's kind of where is what I'm hearing. And especially looking at, especially the restaurants on the Esplanade, it would just be really nice if it was consistent and intentional. And I also agree that the heaters are important. I just feel that I really truthfully don't have a preference to which type heaters are used except for the fact that everything is just kept in a, in a refreshed state. So, it's not just like Commissioner Ruth was saying sideways and crooked, you know, and broken. So, and then also I wanted to comment on the wood to concrete discussion. I just have, in the overall design and what I've been hearing, what I've been seeing in other towns up here, it's just the concrete is cleaner, just looks nicer. I know it's an added expense and I'd like to hear more input on that point, but it just looks nicer. It doesn't allow, like Commissioner Westman was mentioning, it doesn't allow for interpretation. It's just make this happen, make it look nice, put plants in here, keep it fresh, keep it nice. Don't make it feel like we're dining on the street corner. It's an intentional area for, you know, space, nice, nice area. So, that's what I had to say. Mr. Newman. Hey, on the attention between uniformity and sort of eclectic creativity, I lean in the direction of Mr. Arnone and I think that we should not impose too much of a uniformity. And my thinking on that is that just the nature of Capitola is that it's always been a eclectic community. And on the other extreme, you have Mission Viejo or places like that where every place is almost identical in architecture and design and so forth. And I just don't think that's ever been the style in Capitola. And I think that the upgrade that the plan will result in is sufficient to result in a great improvement over what we have now without trying to make every place look the same. Thank you. Susan, is your hand up again? It's up again. I had a couple more items that I wanted to talk about. One of them I think is pretty simple is signage. I don't object to the signage. It's just, I don't think the way it's written right now, it's very clear where this signage is going to go. Now that we've gone to only having, you know, the ropes and the stanchion to separate this area from the sidewalk, are they going to nail the sign to the stanchions? You know, we certainly don't want them on the other side. You don't want the traffic driving down the esplanade to see the signs on the traffic side of the parking on the dining deck. So I just think we need to be a little clearer about, I think there are two signs that are allowed, a menu sign and then a sign naming the restaurant. And even if we just said something as simple as they need to go on the sidewalk side of the dining deck, that would work for me because I don't want to see them on the street side. One other thing I would like to see is now that we're going to these movable stanchions in the rope. I think we need some sort of condition in there which says that the dining deck can't encroach on the sidewalk. It's like they can't decide that they want to make their dining deck bigger by moving these movable stanchions and rope and putting that part on the sidewalk so they have a little more dining space in their dining area. So again, just another simple condition that says everything needs to remain on the dining deck, not encroach on the sidewalk. And I would like to talk a little bit more about having the wood option because for me that just opens up I think areas that could be problematic for us unless we really get into a lot of detail about the kind of wood or the kind of artificial wood that's going to be used and how that's going to look. We all know that people build fences in town and sometimes the fences look great and sometimes they don't look so great depending on the kind of wood that they're made out of. And so I would like to see a start as Courtney suggested with just the concrete planters. It's simple, it's easy, it's neat. We know what it's going to be when it goes in and while I usually agree with Mr. Newman, I think that if you go to Las Gladys you'll find that that's a very eclectic city. The buildings are all quite different but they have been consistent in their, how they've handled their outdoor dining and it looks really nice there and I would like to see that happen in Capitola as well. So those are my comments. Thank you Susan. Well I've flip-flopped I think three times just listening to these comments. Mr. Arno completely convinced me that we're walking down a path of a committee designing a horse and ending up with a camel. But then Courtney convinced me that no, this is a streetscape and it makes us, this is, we need some consistency in a streetscape. So it's difficult for me to decide on something. I know I've looked at the reef dog outdoor dining and that's beautiful and that's got wooden planters and it doesn't worry me that that that's a safety issue. But ultimately if I was to weigh in I would say that the one thing that I would agree since we seem to have a consensus on the concrete planters that I could go along with the consistency being the concrete planters and then everything beyond that it's like I give up, I can't design these things for them, the plants, the heaters, let them do what they want. But the concrete planters maybe that's the consistency that makes us look at least professional. Those are my comments. Any further comments? Katie, did you get the input you needed? I kind of want to get some clarity. So I think I hear a majority saying concrete only. I'm hearing four out of five. Pyramid heaters, I'm just going to go down my list if you don't mind. Pyramid heaters, can you raise your hand if you want them all to be pyramid heaters? So I think we were, and can you raise your hand if you would rather them all be the standard heater or is there a, how about it? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter as long as they provide heat. We have three for it doesn't matter or three. Okay, so it doesn't matter. Okay, so no reg. Narrow the type of plants to create a streetscape. So right now we have about 20 plus. Jennifer was saying we can do some, we can bring it short in the list of there's some shade plants and some sun plants. Can I see a raise of hands for those who support narrowing the scope of plant options? Oh man, it's up to me. I think two out of five. You brought it up. I know it, but he changed my mind. I have preferences. I just, in plants and in everything, I just really feel that it just needs like the underlying theme should be, it should just be fresh and nice. I don't care. Narrowing would be great. It's just make it look good. I'm just going down to 10 options. That's a maybe. Is 10 a good place to lend? Do I hear it well? I guess I don't think it's a good idea to limit it because I think now all of a sudden we're going to have to pick the plants and I don't think we're capable as a committee to be arborists. We have wonderful landscape architects on our team. Mike and Jennifer can pick the plants, but if you'd like them to further limit them, please raise your hand. Further limiting? Okay. Okay, so we'll further limit. I'm seeing three out of five street furniture. Would you like to require that they utilize one of the three manufacturers? They can pick their colors. They can pick their style, but they should utilize one of the three manufacturers. I'm seeing hands, 100% support there. Hi. Courtney, do you want to comment? No, I'm not even going to go there. We do have conditions that if they get faded, they need to be replaced, but those manufacturers were picked because of their quality and better pricing. Concrete is a yes. Signage requiring signs to face the sidewalk side of the dining deck. Is there support for that condition? Rather than it won't, the signs cannot face out to the street. They need to face towards the sidewalk. Okay, that's support. Are flags and banners included in that or are they falling to the sign ordinance? They're not allowed to have a flag or a banner on the outdoor dining. Just two square feet signs. One can be a menu sign and the other one can say the name of the business. Stanchions require that they be on the dining deck and not allowed to go into the sidewalk. Okay. I have a note here and I think, Mick, you brought this up, the public bike parking. It's one of your first comments, but I'm not sure exactly. I'm just wondering if the prototype designs where they include the bikes, if that's public. Oh, yes. And I'll add a condition that's a great point, that those are to be open to the public. It's not just for those people. So, okay. Okay. Do you want me to review the list or? I'm happy with what you've read back. Okay, great. So, with that, I am looking for a motion to approve. It's a blanket coastal development permit as well as a design permit for the prototype design with the added conditions as we just reviewed. So move. I'll second it. You have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Louis, you're on mute. Yes. Yes. Aye. You're welcome. Aye. Okay. So much for a short meeting. Let's move on to our second item, which is 201 Monterey Avenue number C. We have a staff presentation. Hey, good evening, commissioners, and thank you, Chair Wilk. A brief presentation on this item. So, this is Castingola's Cafe in Delhi and 201 Monterey Avenue, corner of Capitola Avenue in Monterey. In a historic building, the Heinz superintendent building, and zoning is mixed-use village. So a little relevant permit background here. In 2007, a prior owner came to the city for a CUP modification. They combined two units, which is the 550 square foot Castingola, Delhi, as it is today. And they were approved for a takeout, Delhi, with six inside seats. And then in 2020, as COVID-19 relief measure, temporary use permit was approved to allow sidewalk seating and use of the side patio. And essentially, with the addition of beer and wine, that is what is being proposed tonight to be formally approved with the new ordinance allowing outdoor dining. So beer and wine sales, and then an update to the hours to comply. There were some old conditions with the prior use permit. And so we're just recommending that the hours get modified to match the outdoor dining ordinance. Some of our analysis, we had a plan check with Public Works. And we also had a meeting with the police department. Public Works primary interest was clearance of the sidewalk. And we checked with police because there's a requirement in the outdoor dining ordinance that the establishment be in good standing. So we wanted to see if there were any service calls and there were not. One concern did come out of my contact with ABC, and that was just clearance on the sidewalk. And I have a couple of slides to show that. And it's primarily about clearance and delineation. And so the applicant did propose to have beer and wine consumption on the sidewalk. That's really the only item with this application that we couldn't support. And so these are the conditions. The other is current ordinance allows, and this came up on the last item, 160 square feet of customer accessible space. This with the combination of these two units is 220 square feet or thereabouts. So they just need to remain with their six seats as approved with the prior use permit. And we talked to the owner about replacing the umbrellas, which they agreed to. Got a site plan. So the two areas for outdoor dining three, two by two, bistro style, rod iron along the base of the building at the sidewalk. And then it's 88 square feet. It's 11 by eight at the patio dining. And then proposed beer and wine fridge behind the counter. This is the side patio seating. And then this is the customer area. So proposal is to bring in another commercial display refrigerator for the beer and wine. And then this gets into some of the constraints that relate to both sidewalk clearance and then ABC's concern about delineation. So this is actually the wider side. The sidewalk has a bit of a taper as it relates to the building here. And so edge of table to the five foot clearance is 27 inches and only 13 inches to the back of a chair. So any kind of planter or stanchion is just rendering the space just not able to have enough maneuverability to fully delineate as ABC would require. This is a view of the other side. We did actually add a condition of approval. This is the north side, this table nearest the photo. And this can only really be a two top with two opposing chairs that are parallel to the building. A third chair doesn't really work here with the sidewalk clearance. And it's a really busy sidewalk. So with that, we are recommending approval just with the limitation of no consumption of beer and wine at the sidewalk. And I can take questions. Questions to staff. Yeah, I have one. A Commissioner Ruth. Brian, did you raise the issue with them of their illegal sign they often post on the corner at Monterey and Capitol Avenue? No, we didn't talk about that. I think that sign actually is approved. It might just be the placement if they're putting it closer to the corner. That is a that meets the sidewalk. I found an old permit for a sidewalk sign. So is it typically it's placed down on the corner? Okay. When we were there, it was right at the edge of the building in the next door space. But we were there pretty early in the morning. Is that it? That's just maybe they need a reminder. Okay. Commissioner Westman. I'm fine with this one. Okay, your hand was up. I'm sorry. I've got to put my hand down. I'm down. Yeah, I have a comment. I brought it. I brought it up to staff beforehand with regarding a rest restroom capability since they're since they have more and more diners. There's a restroom that's that's shown inside the inside the building. Can we just make sure that that's not a employees only restroom that that is a public restroom? Is that something we can do in like conditions or somehow ensure that that's the case? Yeah, we could add a condition that there'd be a restroom available to the public. I think as it stands right now, they're because of the combination of the two tenant spaces, each of them had a bathroom. So I think the way they're utilizing it now is one is public facing and one is employee facing. Okay, I just want to make sure that there is there is one public facing or public public access restroom. That's okay. So those are the questions. Are there any public comments on this issue? Does the applicant wish to speak? I don't see Commissioner Christensen's hand was up as well. There might be one additional question. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a question there, Katie? I mean, Courtney? Yeah, I just wanted a quick clarification of what the 160 square feet limitation was with you mentioned it before. Yeah, it's just there was a change in the newly adopted zoning ordinance for takeout restaurants. So the prior standard was a maximum of six seats. And the current standard is a maximum of square footage kept at 160 square feet accessible to customers. So just a sort of a minor change, no longer counting seats, just limiting square footage. Okay, so how does that affect his interior space in terms of? It really doesn't. It's just a point of clarification that they're complying with their prior use permit in that regard and they have too much space to comply currently. So we need to still limit them to six seats. I see. Okay. Okay, any other questions to staff? Let's go then to public comments. Do we have public comments? Looking at the Zoom attendees and I'm currently not seeing any hands up. And I'm going to ask Leonard Sosanto if he can check the email. We do not have any emails in. Okay, very good. Let's move on then to deliberations. Does anybody wish to discuss this matter or make a motion? I would like to make a motion to approve his request for beer and wine. I think there's not a problem. Let's make a motion. So we have a motion to approve this application with staff comments, I assume, as well as a second. Any additional comments or deliberations? Are we adding the condition that was proposed regarding the restroom? I don't feel that that's necessary, but I am open to input. Then let me add that as a friendly amendment. Can I add that as a friendly amendment to insist that there's a public restroom available? Will you accept that amendment, Courtney? Yeah. Okay. Will you also accept that, Mick, as the seconder? Yes. Okay. Susan Westman has a question. So when you say public, this is not anyone from the street can walk over and use it. This is a restroom for their customers. That's my intent. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion and a second. We have a roll call vote. Louie. I'm trying to, Kristen. Yes. I'm trying to do my yes. I'm trying to Westman. Yes. I'm trying to. Yes. Go with. I motion passes. Let's move now on to item five B. No, C. We're up to 1350 49th Avenue. We have a staff presentation. Yes. Thank you. Just one moment. Good evening, commissioners. So the application before you is for 1350 49th Avenue. This is a permit amendment for a design permit, coastal development permit, and a variance request for a single family residence at again, 1350 49th Avenue project is located in the jewel box neighborhood at the intersection of topaz street and 49th Avenue. This amendment does not alter the nature of the variance request that was previously granted in 2018. And the project is of comparable scope. So I'm going to be kind of brief with the project overview and can take any commission questions at the end. This is the proposed site plan. And as before highlighting some of the additions this on the on the slide, you can see the blue areas, which are the first story additions, a garage and a bathroom again here, except for the second story. This is the extent of the second story addition, which is entirely new amounts to approximately 446 square feet. With the first and second story additions in total proposed project is 1832 square feet or for flurry ratio 57% conforming to the maximum flurry ratio of 57% for the lot. And here I'm going to go through side by side the previously approved designs and the currently proposed designs. This is the the west facing elevation or the most publicly visible and front facing elevation along for 9th Avenue. Changes in massing are perhaps most noticeable on this elevation with an expanded porch in the center and a wider second story. Exterior material changes have also taken place and include stucco siding instead of vertical instead of horizontal excuse me wood boards and standing metal seam roof instead of composition shingle. Here are the north side elevations approved and proposed. This is the east side and this is the rear elevation. The variance included with this application is is the same as before. It is for the construction of the single story garage to extend 13 inches into the north side setback. This would allow them to build a full development standard 10 by 20 parking space and covered parking is a requirement for the scale of this project. This is the same placement as the original design as well. So in reviewing the application as before for applicability for variance. I wanted to go over a little bit about just this site. As you can see here we have an approximation of the first story building envelope with respect to setbacks. It's highly irregular based on the irregular lot dimensions and shape. It has a four it's a four sided polygon with no parallel or congruent sides. Typical lots in the jewel box neighborhood are typically rectangular in shape and approximately 40 by 80 feet. On this lot the frontage is 60 feet wide. The lot lines are 30 deep on the south and 71 on deep on the north with the rear lot line of 74 feet. The unique lot shape provides an atypical area in which to locate a rectangular garage. Most properties in the vicinity and zone in which the properties located are able to accommodate the required 10 by 20 foot covered parking space due to the fact that they are regularly shaped and oriented. Granting a variance will allow the applicant to enjoy the same privileges as those properties around it within the same neighborhood and zone and would allow this property to be closer to conformance with its requirements for parking. Based on these findings staff continues to support the variance request. And then I was going to touch on the non conformities. The existing home is as you can tell non conforming structure because it does not conform to the front side or rear setback requirements. The red area is the existing footprint of the structure. It also extends beyond the south lot line into the adjacent lot. The proposed project was reviewed by the building official and does not exceed the 80% although it is pretty close to that 80% threshold as one of the commissioners had noted to us earlier of the present fair market value. So the proposed additions are admissible underneath the construction cost calculation for non conforming structures. And with that we are recommending to the planning commission that they approve the permanent amendment based on the findings and conditions of approval like I said before I can cover anything that we didn't touch on. The commission has any questions. Any questions to staff? Commissioner Ruth? Yeah I just like some clarification on calling it an amended permit. If the original permit was granted in 2018 and they never acted on that permit didn't that permit expire? Sure if that's a great question. They actually have in under our understanding acted on this application given that they have an active building permit that has been under review. This came about through proposed modifications to that building permit where upon after seeing the latest proposed revisions we notified the applicant that these well exceeded the scope of which we could do under administrative modification and we let them know that if they wanted to proceed it would have to go back to the planning commission. Okay it just strikes me this should be an entirely new application because they haven't done any work that I'm aware of. Second I like some clarification on the encroachment onto the adjacent lot. Is that an encroachment that's put into the title? Are you asking if it is on the title or if we are requiring it be on the title? Well I guess the answer to either of those would be no. Where does the adjacent property owner come into play in this? So I actually do have a slide for that give me one moment. So this is the south boundary. To the south it is 1335 Prospect Avenue and I've highlighted two areas the area shaded in blue. Actually both those areas blue and in red are currently encroaching sections of the existing structure. The red area is being proposed for removal. The blue area is not and the walls there are being proposed for improvements. Structural improvements as well as fireproofing. We have spoken before this with both the property owner the applicant who I believe both of which are present as well as the property owner of the said property to the south as well as the city attorney about this encroachment and the best way to handle it. From our understanding the neighboring properties biggest concern is not allowing a perpetuous access to their property. So after speaking with our attorney we added a condition that would require an access agreement between the two parties for the purposes of construction that doesn't extend into any kind of change to title or easement. So is this an irrevocable encroachment permit? No there's nothing that to that nature this is all on private property and the extent of this encroachment is existing. We're not optimizing any new encroachments. Okay what if the property that's encroached upon changes hands and the new owner doesn't want this neighbor encroaching on his property? That would be a private property matter that's my understanding this is a long-standing encroachment to which both owners are well aware of because these properties have been in the hands of up until recently the same families for decades. In fact I did come across a discussion of this very encroachment from decades past in a prior public hearing here. So it's well established that it's there if the encroached property wishes to formediate that they would likely need to seek counsel. Okay I'm just familiar with the situation where there was an encroachment or probably over 50 years on another property and when that property sold the new owner made that encroachment go away. Yeah so Commissioner Rose just to clarify the requirement that we will have on this permit is that they allow access during construction but it's not to go any further beyond that that will be a private property matter but to allow them access during construction. Well it seems like it's a gamble for the builder on that on that home because if the property next door never changes hands that new property owner could make him move that portion of his house off his property. So this is Commissioner Westman and we had these come up a number of times in Capitola because there are a lot of encroachments and typically they just did a lot line adjustment as part of the application so that you cleaned up this encroachment. Were they approached about doing a lot line adjustment? Not specifically not by the city no. Because you know I'm old and the rules change a lot and they may have changed since I was around but I thought you were required under state subdivision law to do a lot line adjustment in these kinds of situations. In reviewing this with our city attorney they did not raise that concern but we could still have that conversation with the applicant should they want to pursue a lot line adjustment. Yeah because I don't think it's appropriate for us to allow somebody to rebuild something on someone else's property without you know certainly having legal documents that say it's okay with that other property owner. That is the requirement within this permit is that they are allowing them to do that. Well let me get a clarification on that then because you got the 78% versus 80% calculation if it was 80% then it would come before us to reevaluate this encroachment but since it's less than 80% we don't get to say is that is that how you interpret that? So if I'm understanding you correctly I think the answer would be if they were over 80% on their nonconformity calculation the question at hand would be either to require conformance to all standards including setbacks or to request a variance for the nonconformities at large not just new nonconformities but existing ones. So to follow up on that when you did this calculation the 78% that was the city official who made that calculation or that was the applicant who then submitted it for review? It starts by the applicant submitting the the formula that we have to us and then we take a look at it based on their scope. Okay so that in 2018 was the same calculation made and maybe it was 40% or 20% or? Yes the same calculation and method was used. I don't actually have a record of the original spreadsheet that was utilized then but it was the same process and despite the fact that our code has updated the nonconforming section of our code has not so it was the same process. All right it just seems to me that it's possible that if someone an independent person made that calculation they could come up with 81% and then they'd have to come up to us with a variance in which case all these issues would come up again in earnest. But okay Mr. Newman you have a your hand up. Well this discussion has really I need some clarification are they getting a permit to actually build on the neighbor's property? Is that the result of this if we approve this? This would conditionally allow them to improve some of the existing encroachments that would not be expansions. I don't know what the city attorney addressed in this regard but it seems inconceivable to me that we can grant a permit to the owner of property to build on somebody else's property or rebuild or do anything else. I agree and I agree it's also I think a solution to it is just to make because I don't I mean I don't want to see them not be able to do their project but I think it should be the way we normally handle these is with an encroachment agreement and I think that should be a condition approved by the city. Okay just so you know the architect John Hoffaker is present on the zoom call and maybe can provide some clarity of what exactly is happening on the neighboring property with the plans. Okay. Yeah let's go ahead and hear from him then. Okay I'm going to Mr. Hoffaker you're available you can speak now. Oh hi this is John. I always have to start with saying I'm a lowly architect I'm not an attorney so I don't have land use comments on this but they have an active building permit that was approved and they could continue building what they have approved for and so which would include improvements to the things that encroach. Second is that I think they did try to make some effort to remove some of the encroachment add fireproofing to it and make it less encroaching than it was just in terms of an architectural structural fire aspect. That's really all that the architect can weigh in on and so I could hand it back to maybe Rick Aberly knows more he's been the one who's been in discussions with Tom his next door neighbor and I live right across the street but I haven't been privy to the conversations between Rick Aberly and Tom so I'll hand it back to you right now. Okay thank you John. Courtney you have your hand up. I think that was my overreaching question listening to the discussion before was if we were just to say you know we don't want you to modify your existing building permit can they just go ahead since they've already had an approved building permit to with the variance and with all of you know the conditions from the previous approval so if we if I mean art is staff asking us basically to approve the alterations to the existing with I mean the variance has already been approved to encroach without any agreement is that that's kind of my question is that is that what I'm hearing staff my understanding is that in the initial and Sean please correct me if I'm wrong but the initial approval did not include an encroachment agreement and for this CS they do have an active building permit in place that they can act on under the old approval although I don't know that it's been it's been in process but as Sean said they tried to modify some pages and that's how this came up was not allowing the modification so the planning commission can definitely act on the plan in front of them tonight and add requirements in order to do the work in that area that encroaches over the property line however we did meet with the city attorney on this and had them review and they thought that just requiring an access agreement approved by the neighbor in order to do work in that area um should be the requirement on this permit so I'm a little bit hesitant to add a requirement for an encroachment permit um but maybe we could if you want to do that in the language suggest um that you know as reviewed and approved by the you know in language approved by the city attorney I think that would be um a way in which to resolve this wanted that that issue I think my question um is if we deny their alterations to their existing permit if we just say we don't really want your existing permit can they still move ahead with their variance but they had approved before is that I believe so I believe they've been acting on their building permit and keeping it active so Shawn do you have any insight on that uh yeah you're you're correct there they've they've maintained this uh application and and to your specific question about the variance uh there this exact variance was approved it's on the opposite side of the structure um the the proposed garage is actually on the north side and this encroachment is on the south side so they they don't directly relate to each other Shawn what have they done to keep the permit active they've continued to submit plans and respond to comments um it's it's been a effectively on hold uh since this was applied for and I believe January but that was three years it passed almost four years I believe there's a bit of a hiatus during uh a portion of COVID I don't have the exact uh submittal and response records in front of me but um our our building official has has kept this active so um this is Commissioner Westman I I actually have no problem with the modifications that they want to make but for me personally I I don't think I'm going to be comfortable voting for it unless we have something you know from our city attorney which says it's perfectly okay for us to approve them building on someone else's property so I wonder if it makes some sense just to continue this to our next meeting because if the attorneys come back and say you guys are making a big fuss over nothing you don't need to worry about it then you know I'm ready to go full speed ahead approving their modifications but I'm not comfortable doing it without having that assurance okay I think I've let the meeting get out of out of sequence here a little bit we're supposed to be still in the questioning phase uh and we haven't even heard from the applicant or the public yet so maybe we should move ahead and and ask if there are any zoom comments or hands raised from the public on this topic we did we did hear from the architect we asked specifically we asked from the architect but we didn't open up for public comment okay I'm fine with doing the process correctly thank you okay so I I do have two hands up one is John Hoffa is the applicant I we had some specific questions there for him I'm not sure if he wants to add on to that or not I do think it would be great to hear from John Hoffa or exactly what's happening in that area of the encroachment I don't think that was answered I think he did answer that while we get him here also on the plan I couldn't tell whether there's a second story deck over the garage so maybe maybe someone could answer that there is not but I I think I can let John speak to the some of these elements himself he John you still are authorized to speak right now if you'd like to you'll have to speak up it's hard to hear you the area above the garage is just a flat area and just to keep a lower rough line to the north property and it's not more than four feet above the provides a less than four foot interior space so that's the only thing happening there's no lawful decked area there's access to that area it's not something that could be the adapted to a second floor deck the the south area with the encroachment the previous plan was mostly leaving the area alone and the project was a the whole project was a little bit less than the scope so that the percentage of construction is less but the percentage of construction goes too high then the building is such an odd shape that the backs are so intrusive that you come up with almost no building area specifically the area that doesn't approach on the south property line there was a about a two foot by eight foot little attachment area it really wasn't part of the we didn't know what it was for somehow it was attached so we were removing it so about two foot by eight foot is being removed from that's one thing and then the owner wanted to do instead of wood siding he wanted to do stucco siding which would provide a more of a fireproof non combustible aspect of the walls and then any overhang that there's about a one foot overhang now and that overhang is being taken away so it's less wood or more fire protection and there's just a gutter a fascia gutter put on that captures the water and is directed on to our property and not directed on to the south property so this whole thing was just trying to improve the situation more than it is now we thought we were trying to make it better I think the property owner has done demolition they have been working with PG&E about the improvements and I believe that was enough to keep the but I'm not involved in construction the architect doesn't have controlled means and methods of permit or construction I believe that would kept the permit active plus delays with COVID but I'm not specifically knowledgeable about that it might be good to hear from Rick Aberly if he wants to comment about the discussions with Tom or but this has been a long expanding condition and I appreciate everybody's concern and we're actually trying to make it better so I'll hand it back to you thank you so I see okay I see Rick has raised his hand Rick I've just unmuted you there yeah hi can you hear me yes yeah so my discussion is with Tom once we were told that we need to get approval from Tom to go and do any work off that side of the house was he had no problem with it when I got this house like 11 years ago Tom I met Tom then and he said hey if you're ever gonna do anything on the side of the house make sure you let me know because this is all my property I said yeah no problem so that's kind of the relationship we really have obviously we haven't done nothing in 11 years it's the same siding same everything over there but so far Tom said no problem and I gave him a letter and he said yeah I'll sign this and have this so you can do your work that's really all that that I got out of that so far okay thank you Rick thank you anyone else we do have a Stephen Lang with his hand raised go ahead Stephen Stephen you've been unmuted if you'd like to speak now so I can't hear him can anyone else I see his his mic was just enabled Stephen we can't hear you well since Stephen is gone mute is there anybody else with their hand up I don't see anyone else with their hand up we did receive a comment via email um from I can just read that it's very very brief uh Joan Alter why are you allowing a non-conforming to continue a topaz neighbor okay uh let's just let Stephen know that if he wants to text us or anything we we can go ahead and try to get his comment in but in the meantime maybe we should then move on to um commission deliberations so do we want to go back to uh general comments about the project in general commissioners yeah I'll go ahead I don't have any problem with the project in general uh I certainly questioned the validity of the original permit to make an admitted permit but let's see that here we're there but I'm with Susan I don't see how we can approve a plan that encroaches on someone else's property when the only document is just a letter from Tom Deasy to this gentleman saying it's okay uh I think we need to go with Susan's original uh suggestion of a lot line adjustment to make everything legal and continue it until that takes place well so Susan's last comment was uh we should get uh we should have legal review this one more time and then continue it until we get um uh something more firm more more affirmative or serious from legal whatever I want to say so uh do we want to just go ahead and support a motion for continuance and chair wilka there's one thing I'd like to just note and Katie you can you can correct me if I'm uh if there's anything more here but uh with regards to the condition number 23 that we had added some context was that when we spoke with our city attorney they had they had uh offered to draft a access agreement for for us and and the the parties involved so that would be something directly crafted by them right this is commissioner westman I mean for me personally I can't vote for approving a project that encroaches onto someone else's property if you come back and the city attorney writes us a letter and says you know there is no problem with the planning commission approving projects that encroach on other people's property I'll happily vote for it because I don't have any particular problems with what they're you know proposing to do or the modifications that they want to make I'm just uncomfortable voting um to do this on on another person's property and you know I may be off base and the city attorney may tell me that but until they give me something that tells me that uh you know I would have to vote against it and I would really not you know like to be in a position where I have to vote against it okay let me just weigh in as well and say that that's really my only issue as well and that I uh I'm very happy with all of the other aspects of the property and the project even the variance on the with the with the garage I have no problems with anything other than what's been discussed here which is the approval of building on someone else's property does anybody else have any comments about the project in general uh commissioners uh christiansen or or newman feedback would we want to give him as a as a as a builder well this is commissioner newman I I agree with the project I have no issues with the project and I focused initially on this same issue of building on someone else's property but I don't I think a lot line adjustment is is kind of a long way around the problem and he's already doing what I assume is a recorded access agreement to go on to the other property while he's going to be doing this building and I think that that could be expanded to include an allowance of the encroachment normally what those kinds of agreements say is that the existing encroachment can remain or in this case can even be improved as long as it's still there and then if it ever burns down or is somehow demolished then the original property line remains the valid and that gets recorded and I think we'd be doing them a favor if they clean this up now because these kinds of things come back when maybe they're other owners and they can be very ugly and expensive uh so I think just letting this go forward without helping them in effect rectify this is a mistake but I don't think we need to force them into a lot line adjustment so I would be willing to make a motion to continue this application to our next meeting to give staff time to get a written response from the city attorney for the planning commission regarding the encroachment on the neighbor's property is there a second I'll say uh I have a a motion and a second by commissioner ruth uh Courtney Christensen you had a comment or or as far as further discussion goes do you have any anything you wish to say I was just gonna I was seconding um commissioner westman's motion but then commissioner ruth beat me to it oh but but let me just ask let me just further ask since uh since since we're here reviewing the project and we've been focusing on this one issue are there any other issues that any of the commissioners want to bring up as something that need to be addressed or is everybody pretty much like I am and like commissioner ruth is very happy with the project with that one exception I'm fine with the project commissioner newman with the project okay very good so we have a motion and a second uh any further discussion okay louis could we have a roll call vote just this i'm going to call my christensen aye commissioner newman yes commissioner westman yes commissioner i I uh continuance passes and hopefully we'll get a uh uh a good legal adjustment on this in the next meeting and and and let the app go ahead with this project so now we're ready to move on to our last uh public item which is 720 hill street we have a staff presentation yes thank you chair wilk chair wilk this is 720 hill street tonight before the commission is a new hotel the permits being requested design review conditional use permit and a tree removal property is a little over three acres and has the quality in developed on it currently and the point to the the green spot on the map here there's actually an undeveloped field here at the remainder of the property that is for this new hotel this would be a boutique hotel and would not be associated with the quality in this is just a street view of that site never been developed only has just a minimal perimeter landscaping so uh a little bit of background uh the original hotel was approved and only built in one phase there actually was another phase of the hotel uh in 1978 that was approved in the on this sub site of the the larger property never built and similar efforts in 1989 through 2005 some various there was even a sub residential subdivision approved here but nothing has ever actually moved forward to break ground the commission and the city council saw this last year basically in the same size and scope of project but some significant refinements have been made general layout and some quantifiable measurables here so the property takes access off of crossroads loop the arrows on the left side here are showing how a vehicle or a guest arriving for check-in would arrive at the property and then the green is the hotel underneath the hotel on the the bottom floor is a is the public space and you drive through the upper floor the upper two floors of the guest floors and those strut out over the the portico share arrival so after check-in you would proceed to the private drive and then up near the second set of arrows is the proposed parking building size is a little over 18 000 square feet 42 rooms and we've got three loading spaces and the proposing 15 bike parking spaces the city contracted with rm architecture and planning consultant continued that contract they reviewed the conceptual review we continued it with this formal review and some of the design enhancements are highlighted here we've got a new material and cladding at the soffit a massing break where the trust a panel and the stucco as they wrap around and meet there's a vertical articulation there and stair tower was moved that was a topic of concern for the daylight plane so that was moved over significantly and then the column that's strutting out over the portico share has a new design feature there's an added laser cut metal around the arrival and then further enhancing the arrival experience is a stained concrete pattern flipping around the the property the way this design is is it's it's cut into the hill so on the upside at the new parking area you're looking at only a two-story they've added some a third accent color at the facade continuing that laser cut a material at the stair and that stair goes up to a rooftop patio which is a key amenity for this property and an angled awning for after guests have checked in and they're going into the room and then this is view from the hill street side you can see they cut into the hill there and then flipping around this is from the private drive and there's that rooftop patio it's got a penthouse that would serve catering and then proposed along the corner here as the building turns is a mural and this may qualify for this project is required to provide public art but the goal here is to hire an artist to paint on or install some kind of a public art and it may meet that requirement it may not but it's going to be incorporated into this design in either case looking at floor plan so on the left we've got the public space this is a limited service property so it's it's pretty it's pretty efficient in the layout i'm going to use the pointer here got the front door lobby check-in office space there's an in-house laundry lounge a meeting room and a fitness and then the guest floor stack so they're primarily the same and they split between five kings and 16 queens that's on the right side here this is the rooftop patio floor plan so it's wrapped on the north and west side with a built-in rooftop planner it's got a shade structure and you can see the the back bar or catering bar there three different means of ingress egress got the elevator and then two stairways that access this just quick highlight on drainage because this is a pretty substantial drainage installation so there's two detention basins in the the orange and then a rip wrap lined swale so all of this is designed based on a calculation of a 95th percentile storm event over a one hour duration in order to recharge and give water an opportunity to be treated on site with regard to landscaping this plan has been pretty substantially enhanced in terms of quantity and size of plants with a big focus on the residential boundary which I've circled here there is one limitation with a wall along the the boundary along the right side of this plan there's a CMU wall concrete wall block wall that is uh varies like from four to six feet on to the hotel side of the property and does present some limitations and i'm going to get into that in a little more detail here so the proposal is a seven foot tall trellis with a growing vine my my superimposed here is not to scale but it's representative of the intent and this is to project two feet above the existing wall that you can see in the photo there and then as mentioned at the top of the meeting we did get some correspondence after the packet was was issued and so there is a neighbor concern about this the same issue so they've written an email that we forwarded on requesting either a new wall or adding a cap to the wall or somehow increasing the wall height to add to privacy and noise impacts there was a concern mentioned about large vehicles and idling vehicles and noise and parking lot lighting was also mentioned i'm going to circle back to that but i'm just going to kind of finish on the the aspects of the the project first so some sustainability features we've got four EV chargers with top solar panels a number of water use efficiency uh items that will be built into the the project and then a program to do loner bikes six loner bikes are proposed with regard to sequel this city contracted with dooduck for to be our lead consultant they advised that this project qualified as a infill categorical exemption but they did do two focus studies which were included as attachments in a transportation study in an archaeological assessment the site does have a zoning overlay so an affordable housing overlay and with the last housing element cycle was assigned 61 units and so in the staff report we did some analysis we worked with the city attorney as well and we were able to put together basically other allocations for the units that were assigned to this property and they'll be incorporated in our next housing element cycle but it's a combo of 80 use one site that was actually a state nursing facility that is the state is decommissioned and is now available for private development and then we have one a live application for an all affordable 36 units so with regard to the the neighbor issue I did communicate back and forth between the neighbor and property owner and we're recommending one added condition here and that would be just to adjust the the old light standard that are in the parking lot now all the parking lot lighting will be new with this project but in the meantime we're adding a condition that they adjust to avoid trespass onto the neighboring property and then I added an optional condition of adding a wood cap to the masonry wall the reason why I'm adding this is optionals because I think the owner wants to speak to this and and thinks that there are some variables and practical issues associated with it but it's certainly justifiable as a design review finding and there's a nexus for it because the the new hotel needs the existing parking in order to meet the parking standard so within the commission's purview to require and I just pulled these off of the internet there would be something like this and so I do have a couple of slides after our recommendation but with all of that we are recommending approval of the project but so much goes into these designs that I just wanted to pay respect to the architect and just pause on a couple of their materials board their inspirational images and some of their rendering so just pause for six or eight seconds on a couple of these all right that's my presentation thank you okay are there any questions of staff I guess I have a question and it involves all of the I don't want to say concessions perhaps that the applicant made he seems to have been very cooperative I was wondering you know sometimes it's possible that staff gets over enthusiastic and trying to be very specific in terms of the requirements and making sure the neighbors are happy and whatnot I was just wondering if the applicant wanted to push back on any of the conditions that were imposing or the staff is recommending because the commission has an opportunity to change those I don't think we reached agreement on the wall cap so that's why I left it as an optional condition I think the owner does want to want to discuss that this evening okay well then if there are no questions of staff on this presentation then let's move on to public comment and let let them have is say the applicant wish to speak hello my name is Dan Patel I'm the owner of the quality he'll quality in and also this new project the 42 unit project we did basically took the neighbors concerns and the one concerns that is still out there is the the wall so what I was suggesting was that we put what Brian suggested was to do a wood maybe just for for that one neighbor because the ivy is going to be growing so everything's going to look green that was my suggestion today the lighting and the cars idling that won't be happening because we have exact parking for auto only so right now the reason for the idling is because we have extra spaces so sometimes we get movers you know like rider trucks that'll come and park and they'll be idling their trucks but once in a while that'll happen but we'll go out there and take care of that but after this new hotel comes in that won't be a question so that's my suggestion on the wall issue so could could I have a clarification on that maybe I miss her do you want to put the three-foot wall just in front of that one neighbor's house correct well that was a suggestion and then because I think all the other neighbor doesn't have a problem so basically we could do it's going to be a ivy Gwen could help out on this because she's on on this too she's if you could come on Gwen but your but your initial your initial comment was and I saw your letter this afternoon was that your your trellis basically covered the privacy issue it does that's your preferred preferred method it it is yes thank you uh do you have any other comments on other any of the other conditions that you would wish to uh make a point on um no none at all okay then um then brian are there any other public comments brian I believe you're muted yep I'm seeing peter felice Sean can you please unmute him hi hi can you hear me yes hi can you hear me yes oh great great this is uh Pete felice uh 714 hill street owner and just a quick question to uh mr patel the uh the screening that you're proposing for the privacy issue uh with the ivy and all that's gonna go across the entire length of all of our properties correct it's uh that's the proposal so it'll start with my property at 714 and go all the way across where the properties uh where the properties meet where your property and our properties meet so mr felice this is not a discussion panel uh you have three minutes to make your point or raise your questions and then we'll move on but sure but we get into we get into trouble when we get into dialogues sure sure that that that is my only question is the placement of the uh the proposed placement of the uh lattice fence to put the ivy on it okay thank you any other comments brian our questions I guess comments is what we're looking for yep we have bill babcock shon if you wouldn't mind unmuting him please hello we can hear you oh hi uh good evening commissioners um basically um I think this is a good project I think it's good for uh capitola and it's a long time coming and the hotel has been very good about handling like moving trucks large trucks that will let their engines idle way into the night and we call over to the night desk and they rectify it but what's I think what I wrote an email which I hope you all have and um it's basically uh really down to um the the height of the wall um the lattice seven feet you know um we get occasionally um trash tossed over the existing wall that's one thing and um and then of course privacy because it's such a well wall um uh under five feet so um so it really comes down to where I have a um hedge that I grew I think three decades or two decades ago uh with the old um the other owner the previous owner of the hotel and gave its blessing and everything of that and over the years it's you know um it's just depleted and so what's happened is that we do not have privacy when people or trucks park up and they you know get out of the cars and they're looking right into our backyard so I grew another hedge um in in the house you know covering our our main windows of the kitchens and things like that so effectively it's uh created a part of the backyard to be non-use due to privacy and then um and then the noise factor so we're really open we're for the project um all we're asking for is to heighten the fence a little bit so it discourages somebody you know of course looking over um and and drawing anything over you know people do what they do these are guests and and the hotel management's trying to control them and we totally get that and that's why we've been tolerant and working with them for decades now so um since 1988 so that's all we're asking for um and we when I looked at the trellis that's proposed it's made out of lattice and and wooden and it only goes up seven feet and um another foot would do it you know eight feet um if that's a possibility or what was proposed there's another option is put a wooden cap on it and um we're we're open um on that we just want to end up with having our peace and enjoyment of capitol and where we live and pass it on to our kids where we live now and essentially is is it and um that I have to discuss about tonight okay thank you Mr. Babcock you're welcome um other comments yep we have one email uh bob lashley i'll just read it this is hi the wall height issue impacts all adjacent neighboring properties would you please comment further on quote ivy unquote growth question mark bob okay sounds like we're we've got one issue we're focusing on other comments no more uh bob lashley has sent another email there is also an enormous problem with gophers on this currently vacant property these rodents visit the adjacent properties regularly excavation is likely to drive the rodents on to neighboring properties more permanently is it possible to do an abatement prior to excavation so adjoining properties aren't destroyed by them okay let's not uh let's not go back and forth again with with with multiple uh multiple neighbors um are there any other new comments no more comments no hands raised thank you brian okay let's move on then to commission deliberation does anybody wish to on the commission wish to chime in on this issue was it uh brian do you have that screen again with those two additional conditions could you put that up please okay that solves the problem of the wall if we adopt those two conditions i don't have any problem with the project i don't see anybody with their hands up somebody want to make a motion go ahead Courtney i'll make a motion to approve um this project and i completely agree with brian and it's a beautiful architectural package with all of the bells and whistles do you want to add the two conditions 55 56 definitely want to add 55 and 56 and um yeah yeah this is commissioner numan i'll second it and say that it's kind of a tribute to the applicant and his architect that uh a big project like this comes down to just one wall is about all we had to discuss all right we have a uh a motion and a second uh discussions um yeah i would like to weigh in as as well and thank the uh the applicant for his his time and and and and effort and expense and i know this is a long arduous process and i appreciate his his putting up with um with with the process and but i but i think it's we we've come up with something that both he and the community and capital are going to be very proud of so are there any other any other comments before we have a vote okay louis can we have a real call vote yes hi uh motion passes unanimously good luck on your project let's move on then to the director's report we have a director's report i did want to want to bring to you your attention one new project that's come in and uh let's i'm gonna stop sharing the screen at this point if you don't um and just there's a project a conceptual review that was submitted for 3720 capitol a road and this is across from target there's a kennel i'll be bringing this to you at our next planning commission hearing um and it is for a assisted living facility i believe up to i think they're proposing four stories they want to utilize a section of code that we have not yet utilized for incentives for uh community the community benefits section of code in which you can get a higher floor air ratio and height if you bring in a community benefit so it's an assisted living facility i think the one of the floors is for memory care and included in that um is that the owner has bought the property in capitol as well as the adjacent property behind it which is in the county so they'll be seeking an annexation into the city to combine the two properties so i think it's going to be a great one to review we have rrm looking at the design we're trying to take care check off a couple boxes of the preliminary requirement for design review as well as conceptual review when you do a a community benefit project that's one of the one step is the requirement for conceptual review so looking forward to hearing your comments on that at the next meeting and other than that i appreciate all the thoughtful comments this evening and especially um all the time and energy that went into the hotel this evening and the um and our prototype design so thank you all thank you katie um commission comments my comment is what would the staff like us to do with these containers that were dropped off at our houses i don't leave them outside your house tomorrow we can swing by and pick them up okay sounds good sure yeah there's a container outside my house i'm not at home i still haven't seen it from years ago pick it up peter you won't even you won't miss it all right any other comments if not this meeting is adjourned good night everybody good night thank you