 have your life. Okay, we will call the regular meeting of the capitol planning commission to order and roll call. Commissioner Ruth here. Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Welch here. Commissioner Welch here. And Chairman is here. A oral communications additions and deletions to the agenda. Do we have any? I'm going to ask Planner Sasanto if he received any additional materials for his item today or since the packets gone out. No, I have not. Okay. No additions or deletions. Thank you. I had a question about the agenda which was the public hearing. Be the color board discussion. Do we want that to be a public hearing or just a discussion among commissioners? You know, I thought it wouldn't hurt to put it on as a public hearing in case anybody wanted to chime in on it, but it's all right. Okay, previously we had it as a director's report. I guess we forgot to do the pledge. So let's take a brief moment to do the pledge and also my introduction. So, okay, everyone standing or ready? I pledge allegiance to the United States of America which advance into the republic under this indivisible indivisible indian justice for all. So, ready? Justice for all. Okay, we've got it down to like one of those coral readings where they go in sequence. Okay, next is public comments. This is an opportunity for anyone, any member of the public to address items that are not on the agenda. And in the past we've kind of taken a two-minute break here, but it seems like we could at the beginning just have people let us know in advance if they have any public comments. So, John, has anyone sent anything in? Matt will actually be checking for all the comments tonight. Okay. And we've not received any emails. Yes, no emails. And let me look. Don't see any hands raised. So, okay. Well, you know, in our introduction to the meeting, maybe we should add something about if there's going to be any public commentation present that, be ready to present that. Yeah, I believe that Planner Orbach has a slide for that to explain how the public can comment. So, Matt, if you could pull up those slides. Yeah, sorry, it's hard to keep going back and forth with this. Every time I need to check everything, I have to pick this down. Okay, let me go back to my introduction then for a general public. In accordance with the current shelter-in-place orders, this Planning Commission meeting is not physically open to the public. Limited staff are present in the Planning Commission chambers, and the Planning Commission is participating remotely by a video call. Members of the Planning Commission can use the reaction choices in Zoom to indicate they would like to speak similar to raising a hand. As always, this meeting is capable of being broadcast live on Charter Communications cable TV Channel 8 and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 a.m. and on Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25. Meetings can also be viewed live from the city's website and with the Zoom meeting link also available on our website. Our technician tonight is Kingston. Public comment can be emailed or called into the Planning Commission. Members of the public may submit public comment once for each item by email or phone call. You may not submit more than one email or call per item. To call in comments, before the item you wish to comment on, call the phone number and enter the meeting ID displayed. Press the hash key when prompted for participant ID. To raise your hand to make comment, press star 9 on your phone. Wait to hear that you are unmuted and then make your comment. You will have up to three minutes to speak. If you are watching the meeting via Zoom, you can use the participant option to raise your hand and make a comment when unmuted by our moderator. To email comments, identify the item you wish to comment on in your email subject line. Email comments will be accepted starting now up until I announce that public comment for that item is closed. Each email comment will be read aloud for up to three minutes or displayed on a screen. Emails and calls received by outside, received outside of the comment period outlines will not be included in the record. Okay, back to the agenda or on item 2C, which is commissioned comments. Anyone hearing no one? Staff comments. Anything further from on behalf of the staff? No further comments from staff this evening. Nothing at this time. Okay, that takes us to the minutes and we're apparently a little bit behind in our minutes and today we're considering the April 2nd regular meeting minutes which were in the packet and I understand that we're going to be catching up as we go forward. Yes. So does anyone have any additions, corrections to the April 2nd minutes? If not, do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Commissioner Rue, do we have a second? Second. That would be Commissioner Wilt, I think. Welch. Welch. Okay, I couldn't tell the voice of. All right, roll call, vote. Commissioner Ruth? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. And that would be unanimous. So those minutes are approved. Okay, we have two public hearings. The first one is 212 Cherryvale and two of the commissioners, I think one being myself, are recused from that hearing due to any property within the 500 foot radius. So Vice Chair Ruth will take over this hearing. Okay. So we have a public hearing tonight on 212 Cherry Avenue. It's a design permit for remodel and a third story addition with a variance for the maximum height limit and to relocate nonconforming areas of the structure for a single family residence located within the RMLM multi-family residential low medium density zoning districts. The project is in the coastal zone but does not require a coastal development permit. So at this time, if there's no questions from Planning Commission, we'll have the staff through the presentation. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, Vice Chair Ruth. The application before you is, as you said, for 212 Cherry Avenue where the applicant is proposing to construct a third story addition for an existing single family residence. The application includes a variance request for the maximum height limit and to relocate nonconforming areas of the structure. The property is located at 212 Cherry Avenue within the multi-family residential zoning district. The existing residence as appears today surrounded by a mix of single and multi-family homes including pre-story homes on the north side of Cherry Avenue. Cherry Avenue divides the upper and lower village zoning districts with low-density multi-family on the north side and the central village on the south. This is the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing to relocate a portion of the nonconforming third story area shown in orange and construct a third story addition equal to the removed floor area shown in blue. The applicant is requesting a variance to relocate that floor area to an area partially within the site setbacks and on a property that exceeds the maximum floor area ratio. The area again in orange is this area here is where they're proposing to remove from and the areas where they're proposing to act. These are the existing and proposed south or front and west elevations. The west side is the site with the staircase. The proposed remodel utilizes stucco siding on the first floor and coming to the room siding on the upper two floors. The existing asymmetrical gable on the top roof is replaced with two flat roofs with clear story windows. An armor is also proposed on the roof deck. These are the existing and proposed north or rear and east side elevations. The line in blue here just so you know the 25 foot approximate height from grade. The application includes two variants of quest. First the applicant is proposing to raise the height of the structure to 27 feet six inches for the structure and 28 feet five inches for the roof top part. Single family references within the multi-family running districts have a maximum height of 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed that 25 foot height. The capital of the code states that the planning commission may grant the variance permit when it makes when they can make the findings shown above. The subject property for finding a subject property has special circumstances related to the geography because it slopes up towards the rear of the property from the front to the rear of the structure footprint. Grade increases by 13 feet. Currently the third floor is a split level configuration. The remodel would raise the interior floor height to create three full stories. With the height increase the residents would still appear lower than the residents to the west because two-twelfths area would be situated lower on the portion of the hill. Due to the large geography the strict application of height for the high requirements would provide the subject property of provisions enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in their identical zone classification. That review the characteristics of 11 adjacent properties. At least five of the properties reviewed have three stories in a period to exceed the 25 foot height limit which are started with. The grant of variance would not constitute a grant's special privilege because approximately half of this block exceeds the height in all that. The same findings are required for the second variance which is to locate relocate the non-conforming area on that third floor. The subject property has a width of 25 feet and the law is narrow compared to adjacent properties which have an average width of 35 feet. The project will also correct a significant non-conformity by removing the container lever third story portion of the structure which encroaches six inches over into the adjacent property. Due to the property width the strict application of development standards for setbacks and non-conformities with a private subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. It should be noted that this portion of the project would not increase the floor area ratio. Staff reviewed those same or seven of the characteristics of those same 11 adjacent properties. Staff visually surveyed the characteristics of the residence in relation to the lot size and dimension. At least nine of the properties appear to encroach into the required setbacks. Eight properties appear to exceed any allowable floor area ratio for the zoning district. The grand other range would not constitute a grand special privilege because the properties would exceed the maximum bar or floor area ratio and have non-conforming side setbacks. With that staff recommended the planning commission to approve the project based on the conditions and approval of approval and planning. Thank you Sean. Are there any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Hearing none. Sean or Katie can you place the instructions for making comments on the public hearing on the screen and we'll give the public a few minutes to respond. It looks as if there is someone an attendee in the Zoom meeting Matt. Yeah. Karen Christopher would you like me to allow her to talk? I have the ability as well. Okay I'll open. Okay Karen Christopher this is your opportunity to speak. Well I'm just curious because we've never participated in any process like this before but we submitted our comments to be included with your agenda packet so do I assume that you've all read that and that I don't need to read it now? I've seen it and read it. Okay. You do have the opportunity to speak if you would like in addition to your written comments. Well I feel like you said everything in our public comments. We're just surprised and not really sure how this is going to look or feel as far as from our vantage point but I can understand why you're looking at it from the very street but it's going to affect other neighbors behind them to the side of them so I just hope you take into consideration our feelings too and we appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you Miss Christopher. Are there any other comments Matt that we've received? No. Okay I think we've had ample time then I think we'll close the public portion then and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Who would like to comment? Commissioner Welk? Commissioner Welk is very curious. This is Commissioner Welk. We've had a couple of mic'ing along this area and it is one of those areas and it brings a little bit of a different character because of the size of the location a lot the yield that it's on and I know in some cases we approve the variance in some cases we deny the variance. You know it's interesting to look at how we measure the actual height of this project. If you look at it from the front trying to set back it needs a higher apartment then from the rear of the house also it needs a height requirement but it's that middle section that seems to extend over the height requirement because it doesn't follow the exact terrain so I find these are always interesting on how we come up to some type of conclusion on this but I think given the area that it's in, the topography, what's happened with the other neighbors, I personally right now think that I'm in favor of at least the variance for the height requirement. Okay, any other comments? Pardon me. Vice Chair, it looks as if the applicant's representative did not raise their hand during the public hearing but now I see the hand raised. Would you like to take the public comment or? Certainly, let's do that. Okay, Dennis Norton, this is now your opportunity to make public comment. One second. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Okay, good. I'm sorry, I didn't get into this new meeting. I watched the whole thing to this point but I thought I was on there and I don't see that I am. I'm here and I'm representing Marty and Linda Formico who is actually, they've owned this house for 15 years and they're a long time capital people. This remodel is long overdue on this house. It has a horrible floor plan. I think probably shipbuilders built it because the ceiling on the upper floor is only six foot tall and so they're used to below deck type settings. So to make this house work, what we're doing, we're just raising the upper floor to make it even across the whole building from the second floor and then it's raising the floor of the second to where it matches the existing floor. So it's even one. To do that, the rear door on the building is raised four feet higher than it is now. If you were coming up, you're coming up into the house and then you had to step up again to get to the upper floor. It's like a four level house and so we're making that and so the backyard deck will be raised to the same height as the upper floor. We're not changing the height of the deck at all or the configuration. The deck stage is exactly like it is. What we are doing is a portion of this house is overhanging the property line. We're cutting that off and what we'd like to do is not increase by one foot the square footage of the house but just relocate to the deck area and by your ordinance, the deck area already counts as living areas it is. So this is just a trade-off from one area to the other. We're not increasing the size of the house. The deck and the whole facade from the front as from the village from the street will not change at all. You'll see the same house that you see now. From the back, yes, it's going to raise to approximately four feet and we check it out and we're really not impeding on any view areas. We're not touching the tree. I know this request from the neighbors not to touch that. We have no plans of removing the tree and we actually have letters from three surrounding neighbors actually four surrounding neighbors supporting this project and senior packet but the structure has problems and it's maybe gone through I would say or time maybe 10 different remodels and there's just there's no flow to the floor plan. The pharmacist will likely make this eventually their their full-time residents and move here so this is the meaning and the depth for the remodels. Thank you Dennis. Yeah I was going to say I visited the site today to get a better feel of exactly what was happening out there and after looking at it and also looking at the neighboring properties it seems like a reasonable request to me. So are there any further comments from the commission? If not, is there a motion to approve with the conditions, the design findings, the variance findings and the sequel findings? I move to do my adopt and accept staff recommendations. Is there a second? Not hearing a second. I'll second it. And the roll call please. Commissioner Christensen? I think there's an issue with let me unmute. Can you unmute? I'm getting choppy I apologize but I vote aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. And Commissioner Ruth votes aye. The motion carries the permit is granted and that brings us to the next item and Chairperson Newman will take back over. Did Chairperson Newman leave? I'll unmute. Now I'm unmuted. Okay I hope that wasn't intentional. Editorial comments okay. So we had a discussion of the color board issue that was raised by Commissioner Welch at the last hearing. There were only three commissioners present and we had a very interesting diversity of opinion about the extent to which the planning commission should be considering color boards in the applications that come before. Commissioner Welch had a kind of a moderate view that design features and he can correct me if I mistake this design features so I should be considered but color not. Commissioner Ruth felt fairly strongly that the job of the planning commission to consider design and character of the neighborhoods and color is one important part of that and I was on the other side of that I feel like it's not really the planning commission's job to interfere in aesthetics anymore than absolutely necessary. So we thought it would be good to get to continue this and get input from the other two commissioners and with that I'll let Commissioner Welch maybe chime in here because he's the one that originally brought this to our attention and he can tell us if I mischaracterized his position. Chair Newman if you'd like I could give a quick overview of what's required by code and applications if you don't mind just to bring it up. You've got to unmute the commissioners too. Oh wait okay sorry about that. I'm Peter okay Commissioner Welch is now unmuted so for this discussion within the design for design permit to be issued one of the considerations that the planning commission must consider is the consideration relating to architectural character they must look at the suitability of the building for its purpose and also the appropriate use of materials to ensure compatibility with the intent of the title. So in the code there is a requirement of the appropriate use of materials so in this discussion tonight I have some slides that I can show examples of but I really do want to stress that removing the requirement for materials is not something we should be considering because it's one of the findings that must be made by the planning commission so the discussion should really be focused on color otherwise we need to update our our code in order to make a change and materials are also important for when you get to the building portion of a building review and to make sure they're suitable for the design for that they comply with the building code and that happens actually first during the architectural and site review meeting with our building official in the room so she she looks at materials as well so the only requirement that we have for color and material board is on our application and under e it lists colors and material boards there's no specificity beyond that in the application one thing I'd like the planning commission to consider this evening is that we could under e add some more specificity if you want to color and material if you want to color only to apply to commercial and multifamily buildings and therefore single family would be exempt that that's one approach that I think would work well under in this review so any multifamily or commercial building would have to submit a color material boards but other than that materials are required as part of the elevations that the planning commission sees regularly so with that I have just a few slides of examples this was a sign application they use copper and they showed the copper material here this is a single family home and just a simple color material and another single family home and an outdoor dining showing the materials for the area that would be paved as well as the trellis and the chairs and the staging area so with that I'll turn the discussion over to the planning commission thank you yeah I think a commissioner well as I understood what you were bringing forward it was only really the color issue anyway is that correct as correct and it's correct so I don't think I mean I've expressed a kind of a more extreme view but I'm not with the intention that we're going to do anything about it because that's I'm just further along commissioner Wilkes thinking then that he is going okay so anyway well sorry so yeah I'm not interested in in modifying the code I'm just trying to clarify it and apply it as as appropriate so really all I'm asking for is to remove the word color from the application or as listed does the plan specification checklist and and it is not in the code is and so to to and to start it or to have it as a default checklist item is I think it's a little a little an overreach it's beyond the direction of the code for us to ask for what the color is now some codes do have color requirement I looked at the Santa Clara County Coordinates they have a requirement for color on their mountain side buildings so they they like to have or insist on having earth tones and a low reflectivity index but I mean that makes sense you you know you're looking up in the mountains you want to see you want to emphasize that the hillside and not any work structures on it so so there's reasons to have colors in the in the code but we don't have it so we shouldn't be asking for it we have no community standard we have many applications like the one today that didn't even have a color board yet it was on the checklist and apparently was overlooked because the cherry streets didn't have their colors so well you know why is that well they're not following the checklist so you know that it's clearly something that no one insists on so why is it even there so Katie mentioned the the commercial buildings and the larger structures that you know maybe we would want to see a color board I know that was one of the items that commissioner Root brought up that that if it's a big project we want to see materials we want to see the else you know we want to have a good feeling that it's going to fit in the community but as Katie mentioned last time that we do have this enhanced visit visualization standard in the new code that allows for for us the majority of the commission or perhaps just the staff themselves to say you know we really want to see color on this project it's a big project we want to see color but my point is that it should not be a default that's on the checklist and and I think it's a it's kind of a big deal in my mind because you know I don't want to needlessly harass unsuspecting applicants with requirements and items they have to worry about that that are unnecessary I'm mainly focusing on homeowners here I know in my case my wife hadn't selected the color yet and so she was pressured to select the color when we did our remodel before she was ready to and it turns out you know when we really cared about colors so that was an unnecessary exercise that I put her through you know asking for color also kind of implies that to someone who's never been through this before say well does that mean we have to change the color of our house we have to reapply or to what extent you know is our color going to be monitored and in control I mean there's all kinds of misinterpretations that could could happen and do happen when you when you have a requirement like this that that is unnecessary so you know finally someone they feel that they're intimidated because they want you know the finance commission is an intimidating body to stand in front of and perhaps they'll select a safe color in order to get to get their project approved and end up with something they don't really want so finally I've had and I'm what if we had a commissioner whose color applies does that disqualify a commissioner for being on commission because you can't keep colors anyway that's a silly one but the point is it's not something that we really require would definitely don't require them to be anything that we really care about there's no community standard so let's just remove that simple word from the application and direct staff to do so as the commission and and and leave it at that if we we have if there's a big issue that comes up where we want it we want to see the color we can always request it but it should not be the default and that's that's what I think before the other commissioners speak on this maybe we can change the procedure a little here and ask if any of the public members are going to want to address this issue that while we're speaking they can send in either their written comments or let us know that they want to speak and then we'll come back to that in the meantime we'll get some thoughts from commissioner root commissioner welch and commissioner christensen yeah thank you mr newman yeah as I mentioned last time I think our design oversight right now is so limited we shouldn't even limited to even greater that we actually we should be strengthening our design oversight I think the arguments mr wilkes makes are pretty specious arguments those things just don't happen and I spoke to a couple of people who have applicants before the planning commission almost on a regular basis it said the color isn't a big issue it's no big deal and I believe occasionally not often but occasionally the arkansas site committee will recommend color accents in various places on buildings or change or add color accents so I don't believe we should take it out it's there it's harmless it's not a burden on any applicant and it just gives us a little more ability to address design issues well this commission wants to jump in here I'm kind of not ambivalent to the whole portion of being in our code or however we're looking at it in applications it seems like many times we don't enough that bills are may not use the colors that they're initially applied I know same for us as Peter went through we pick colors before we were really ready to pick colors but I think for the residential homes it's not really an issue and since we don't really mind that standard I don't know that it should be an issue and you know the thing is a week after you get through building your place you get paid whatever you want so it really matters and then you know you look at what is the community standard and we have munitions in there or many many years with every color imaginable just about but you may not want on your neighbor's house but it stands out and is an icon for capitol I certainly believe that on the larger commercial projects that we should have some insight into what those colors and materials are but with the residential homes I'm not really in favor of at least enforce them I think sometimes seeing the color it has to do the accent of the house and the design but I don't know that we need to enforce it but then again it doesn't seem like we really are so those are my thoughts. Commissioner Christensen, do you have any comments? I have I do I do am I can everybody hear me? Yes, yes. Hello? Okay good. I do have in-processing planning in the middle myself I found that it increases the understanding of the project to the public and I feel that communicating as much information as possible that you can come up with and presenting it to the public in a public hearing into the planning department really kind of super a lot of problems along the way with our protection design so going to a park and site meeting talking to the other staff members and and making the effort to really articulate what you want to build in your project makes it makes the project move a lot smoother within the community with with the homeowners themselves and I feel like the more information including color really adds to the overall I want to say ease of the project and so I see I'm I do like the part that that you submit color which is material for and even if you change the color slightly I've always felt the planning department staff is always there to kind of negotiate and just and help people through the project so I really don't feel that it's a bad thing to have and to request thank you so are you done do you have anything more to add yes no thank you yeah thanks okay so if I'm hearing everyone correctly it appears to me that we have two commissioners who don't feel like color should be required we have two commissioners who feel it's a very beneficial to have the colors submitted and we have one of the Zambivalent so I don't think there's any action really thinking at this point if anyone wants to an advisory motion I guess we can do that it sounds like it's going to either fail or I'm not sure what's going to happen well then let's make a motion to see what happens yeah I would like to move that any commission direct staff to remove the word color from the plan specification checklist do we have a second uh the chair will second the motion okay roll call the commissioner welch and see I told her again bippo so I'll just say no okay commissioner Ruth no commissioner christensen no commissioner will I and chair is yes so it after that motion fails and the application form will stay the way it is for now but thank you for the discussion it's been very edifying so that takes us to directors report I did want to let the only item to bring you up to date on is the city council discuss that update to the IHO last week and we'll be bringing forward a larger overview of affordable housing to the city council in the future and continued discussion on the IHO but no action was taken at that time so I will that's the inclusionary housing ordinance so I'll continue to keep the planning commission up to date with next steps on that item and that concludes the director's report this evening do any of the commissioners have any I think they would like to add at this point to the meeting well I do it's not it's not the other commissioners do this is on my monthly uh complaints about mattress firm signs today they only had three so we're making progress they only had three illegal signs along the road so I believe it I'm getting feedback here for some reason but I believe that they've already find once for not complying and now they're again not complying seems like we need to increase the enforcement and to a point where they will comply yes the fines get more expensive by the day so now that that's been brought to our attention we'll start finding again yeah it's labor day weekend kind of probably brings brings them out I think but it's still not fair to the other people who comply with our rules okay thank you anyone else it's not uh this is our let's see April May June July August this is our sixth zoom meeting and who would error thought that we'd still be meeting but I will enact over again so see you then thank you